A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rocket Engine Design Question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 18th 21, 07:31 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Douglas Eagleson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Rocket Engine Design Question

Back in freshman physics the large lecture
hall was filled to direct students to the correct
curriculum. One class was the old mass thrust
theory. If you could not follow the theory you
were directed to a non-physics department.

I still wonder to this day. I believed it was more
complicated than stated. There was a function
of rocket mass change with time. And a constant
fuel mass burning giving thrust. A fuel mass velocity
equates the theory. Assuming a constant throttle.

My question was the true efficiency of fuel mass
to thrust. The internal chamber structure is my
question. How would a flat plate engine design
differ from a the chamber? Begging the question,
how do chamber designs converge to the most
efficient?

I figure that maybe the hottest engine is the most
efficient. Making the idea that a thermal defect
exists. This is energy radiated not effecting
thrust. This is of course small compared
to chemical thrust. But it does introduce the
concept of chamber internal dynamics.
How would a straight tube chamber differ
from the normal cylinder with nozzle?
And the exact location of the burn in the chamber
be calculated?
Ads
  #2  
Old April 21st 21, 04:14 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Rocket Engine Design Question

In article ,
says...

Back in freshman physics the large lecture
hall was filled to direct students to the correct
curriculum. One class was the old mass thrust
theory. If you could not follow the theory you
were directed to a non-physics department.

I still wonder to this day. I believed it was more
complicated than stated. There was a function
of rocket mass change with time. And a constant
fuel mass burning giving thrust. A fuel mass velocity
equates the theory. Assuming a constant throttle.

My question was the true efficiency of fuel mass
to thrust. The internal chamber structure is my
question. How would a flat plate engine design
differ from a the chamber? Begging the question,
how do chamber designs converge to the most
efficient?

I figure that maybe the hottest engine is the most
efficient. Making the idea that a thermal defect
exists. This is energy radiated not effecting
thrust. This is of course small compared
to chemical thrust. But it does introduce the
concept of chamber internal dynamics.
How would a straight tube chamber differ
from the normal cylinder with nozzle?
And the exact location of the burn in the chamber
be calculated?


A rocket engine's nozzle is absolutely essential for changing pressure
of the combustion products into thrust.

Theory and equations he

ROCKET PROPULSION
https://tinyurl.com/w9dyedn

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #3  
Old April 23rd 21, 12:56 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Douglas Eagleson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Rocket Engine Design Question

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 11:14:20 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Back in freshman physics the large lecture
hall was filled to direct students to the correct
curriculum. One class was the old mass thrust
theory. If you could not follow the theory you
were directed to a non-physics department.

I still wonder to this day. I believed it was more
complicated than stated. There was a function
of rocket mass change with time. And a constant
fuel mass burning giving thrust. A fuel mass velocity
equates the theory. Assuming a constant throttle.

My question was the true efficiency of fuel mass
to thrust. The internal chamber structure is my
question. How would a flat plate engine design
differ from a the chamber? Begging the question,
how do chamber designs converge to the most
efficient?

I figure that maybe the hottest engine is the most
efficient. Making the idea that a thermal defect
exists. This is energy radiated not effecting
thrust. This is of course small compared
to chemical thrust. But it does introduce the
concept of chamber internal dynamics.
How would a straight tube chamber differ
from the normal cylinder with nozzle?
And the exact location of the burn in the chamber
be calculated?

A rocket engine's nozzle is absolutely essential for changing pressure
of the combustion products into thrust.

Theory and equations he

ROCKET PROPULSION
https://tinyurl.com/w9dyedn

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

Thanks for the reference.

I though I needed to not try rocket science.
von Braun I believe introduced the USA to a proper
delta-v function.

I once offered $12K for a surplus rocket including
a mothballed motor. It was a forty footer that appeared to
be steered by a large gyroscope. The bay for this was
empty. The motor was non-steered bolted solid.

Now my interests are in solid fuel motors. The goal
is to loft a pound payload 2 miles high.
  #4  
Old April 23rd 21, 01:47 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Douglas Eagleson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Rocket Engine Design Question

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:56:35 PM UTC-4, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 11:14:20 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Back in freshman physics the large lecture
hall was filled to direct students to the correct
curriculum. One class was the old mass thrust
theory. If you could not follow the theory you
were directed to a non-physics department.

I still wonder to this day. I believed it was more
complicated than stated. There was a function
of rocket mass change with time. And a constant
fuel mass burning giving thrust. A fuel mass velocity
equates the theory. Assuming a constant throttle.

My question was the true efficiency of fuel mass
to thrust. The internal chamber structure is my
question. How would a flat plate engine design
differ from a the chamber? Begging the question,
how do chamber designs converge to the most
efficient?

I figure that maybe the hottest engine is the most
efficient. Making the idea that a thermal defect
exists. This is energy radiated not effecting
thrust. This is of course small compared
to chemical thrust. But it does introduce the
concept of chamber internal dynamics.
How would a straight tube chamber differ
from the normal cylinder with nozzle?
And the exact location of the burn in the chamber
be calculated?

A rocket engine's nozzle is absolutely essential for changing pressure
of the combustion products into thrust.

Theory and equations he

ROCKET PROPULSION
https://tinyurl.com/w9dyedn

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

Thanks for the reference.

I though I needed to not try rocket science.
von Braun I believe introduced the USA to a proper
delta-v function.

I once offered $12K for a surplus rocket including
a mothballed motor. It was a forty footer that appeared to
be steered by a large gyroscope. The bay for this was
empty. The motor was non-steered bolted solid.

Now my interests are in solid fuel motors. The goal
is to loft a pound payload 2 miles high.


opps. sorry for the typo. The goal is fifty pounds of deadweight,
payload.
  #5  
Old April 23rd 21, 02:02 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Dean Markley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 515
Default Rocket Engine Design Question

On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 8:47:41 AM UTC-4, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:56:35 PM UTC-4, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 11:14:20 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Back in freshman physics the large lecture
hall was filled to direct students to the correct
curriculum. One class was the old mass thrust
theory. If you could not follow the theory you
were directed to a non-physics department.

I still wonder to this day. I believed it was more
complicated than stated. There was a function
of rocket mass change with time. And a constant
fuel mass burning giving thrust. A fuel mass velocity
equates the theory. Assuming a constant throttle.

My question was the true efficiency of fuel mass
to thrust. The internal chamber structure is my
question. How would a flat plate engine design
differ from a the chamber? Begging the question,
how do chamber designs converge to the most
efficient?

I figure that maybe the hottest engine is the most
efficient. Making the idea that a thermal defect
exists. This is energy radiated not effecting
thrust. This is of course small compared
to chemical thrust. But it does introduce the
concept of chamber internal dynamics.
How would a straight tube chamber differ
from the normal cylinder with nozzle?
And the exact location of the burn in the chamber
be calculated?
A rocket engine's nozzle is absolutely essential for changing pressure
of the combustion products into thrust.

Theory and equations he

ROCKET PROPULSION
https://tinyurl.com/w9dyedn

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

Thanks for the reference.

I though I needed to not try rocket science.
von Braun I believe introduced the USA to a proper
delta-v function.

I once offered $12K for a surplus rocket including
a mothballed motor. It was a forty footer that appeared to
be steered by a large gyroscope. The bay for this was
empty. The motor was non-steered bolted solid.

Now my interests are in solid fuel motors. The goal
is to loft a pound payload 2 miles high.

opps. sorry for the typo. The goal is fifty pounds of deadweight,
payload.


You'd better check with your local authorities. If not, you're going to end up in prison.
  #6  
Old April 23rd 21, 04:08 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Douglas Eagleson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Rocket Engine Design Question

On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 9:02:46 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 8:47:41 AM UTC-4, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:56:35 PM UTC-4, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 11:14:20 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

Back in freshman physics the large lecture
hall was filled to direct students to the correct
curriculum. One class was the old mass thrust
theory. If you could not follow the theory you
were directed to a non-physics department.

I still wonder to this day. I believed it was more
complicated than stated. There was a function
of rocket mass change with time. And a constant
fuel mass burning giving thrust. A fuel mass velocity
equates the theory. Assuming a constant throttle.

My question was the true efficiency of fuel mass
to thrust. The internal chamber structure is my
question. How would a flat plate engine design
differ from a the chamber? Begging the question,
how do chamber designs converge to the most
efficient?

I figure that maybe the hottest engine is the most
efficient. Making the idea that a thermal defect
exists. This is energy radiated not effecting
thrust. This is of course small compared
to chemical thrust. But it does introduce the
concept of chamber internal dynamics.
How would a straight tube chamber differ
from the normal cylinder with nozzle?
And the exact location of the burn in the chamber
be calculated?
A rocket engine's nozzle is absolutely essential for changing pressure
of the combustion products into thrust.

Theory and equations he

ROCKET PROPULSION
https://tinyurl.com/w9dyedn

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
Thanks for the reference.

I though I needed to not try rocket science.
von Braun I believe introduced the USA to a proper
delta-v function.

I once offered $12K for a surplus rocket including
a mothballed motor. It was a forty footer that appeared to
be steered by a large gyroscope. The bay for this was
empty. The motor was non-steered bolted solid.

Now my interests are in solid fuel motors. The goal
is to loft a pound payload 2 miles high.

opps. sorry for the typo. The goal is fifty pounds of deadweight,
payload.

You'd better check with your local authorities. If not, you're going to end up in prison.


Yes you are right, my rocket is illegal to make. but I am not going to
make it unless contracted by Homeland Security. They would be
useful as training aids.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New rocket engine by Aerojet ... Hägar Misc 0 July 25th 15 07:36 PM
NF-104 rocket engine question Pat Flannery History 21 December 3rd 08 04:23 AM
Engine in Rocket Park at JSC Doug Krause History 9 November 8th 06 01:27 PM
Design, build, test a small liquid rocket engine. jak785 Technology 6 January 24th 05 01:33 AM
Nexus Rocket Engine Test Successful; 10 Times More Thrust Than Deep Space 1 Engine and Lasts 3 Times Longer (10 years) [email protected] Technology 5 December 30th 03 07:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.