A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

booster propeller



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 16th 05, 09:19 PM posted to sci.space.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default booster propeller

One of the limiting things in Earth to orbit rockets
is first stage initial thrust. The rocket engine
of the first stage has to carry all the weight of
the stages and fuel in the rocket and thus be big
and often expensive. If you increase rocket fuel mass
(since some people advice "fuel is cheap"),
but don't increase first stage thrust, you get
lower acceleration and thus bigger gravity losses.
It can be thought that if the rocket is only powerful
enough to just hover, the gravity losses approach
deltav = useful deltav becomes zero.

So designers have thought of ways around this, like
putting small solid rocket boosters around the base
of the rocket. Then you can put on a big upper stage,
and the thing still takes off. The small solids
are shed pretty soon, but they have done their important
job of giving some initial velocity, thus reducing gravity
losses. Upper stages can have lower, below 1 T/W ratios,
since the stack is by then already going very fast and
their slower acceleration doesn't thus contribute that
much to the total flight time / increase gravity loss.
They will eventually go faster again after they burn some
propellants away.

You also probably know that jet engines have often been
proposed for start thrust augmentation on rockets.
But they are actually awful engines in this job-
their thrust to weight ratio is only close to 10.
They are also quite expensive. Jet engines
are only good at medium speeds - not at standstill
or at multiple mach numbers. Only the latest
high-tech fighter planes have T/W ratios over 1.

But helicopters have been around for over 50 years.
They certainly have thrust to weight over 1. How
is this possible, since their power density is
actually worse than with jets? It is physically very
simple: they have big rotors.
Thrust is relative to reaction mass times the
velocity change of said mass.
Power on the other hand is half the times of reaction
mass times the velocity change *squared*.

So, the higher your velocity change, the more *power*
you need for the same *thrust*.
Mathematically, it's said as F=2*P/deltav, where
F is thrust, P is power and deltav is the reaction mass'
exhaust velocity minus input velocity.

That's why helicopters can hover with big payloads
and jets can't.
Rockets are the worst in this degree, that their
reaction mass is accelerated to many km/s compared
to a few tens m/s in helicopters - rockets waste
a huge amount of energy to generate the same thrust
as compared to a helicopter.


So, in theory, if we tap some of the energy use of
a rocket engine, but use external reaction mass
(a propeller in ambient air), we could accelerate
with much less energy and thus use much less fuel.

The drawback is that propellers become less
efficient at high speeds while rockets don't
care about speed at all. (jets are somewhere between.)
But we could use this only for the first 100-150 m/s.
That's Mach 0.36 to 0.54. I'll come to that later.

For example the RD-171 engine has a 170 MW turbine/
turbopump assembly.* It only burns a fraction of
the propellants going to the main thrust chamber.
Now, we change the pump so it doesn't put anything
to the thrust chamber. The nozzle is silent.
Then we attach a gearbox, a shaft and a big propeller
to the turbine. The propeller gives a 50 m/s velocity
change to the outside air - the resulting thrust
would be
2 * 1.7e8 W / 50 m/s = 6.8e6 N = 6.8 MN.

This would be able to hover about 700 metric tons.
The total mass of a Zenit rocket is about 470 tons.

The RD-171 in normal operation has 7.3 MN of thrust.


What use would this be if we assume we get
100 m/s "for free"?
Well, we could simply put in a bigger upper
stage or bigger payload or both, just like with
the help of solid booster rockets.

Without gravity loss considerations, the effect is
approximated by the rocket equation:

If we assume for first stage
deltav = v_ex log(m_o/m_dry) = 5 km/s
or
m_1o/m_1dry = exp(deltav/v_ex)

Now if we reduce the required deltav by 100 m/s, we get
deltav' = 0.98deltav
m_1o/m_1dry = exp(deltav'/v_ex) = exp(0.98deltav/v_ex)
= ( exp(deltav/v_ex) )^0.98

If original mass ratio was 3
(whole rocket / [whole rocket - first stage propellant]),
now it's 3^0.98, which is 2.93. About a 2.3% decrease,
or in other words, the dead weight of the whole thing
can be increased by 10 tons and speed after first stage
burnout is similar to normal situation. That might
just be the mass of the propeller, gearbox and the
propellant burned during 100 m/s acceleration.

If we assume 3 m/s^2 acceleration (below T/W constraints),
the vertical traveled distance to 100 m/s velocity is
5 km.

I haven't calculated the benefit from possible lessened
gravity losses or starting the rocket motor at higher
altitude.

The world's biggest helicopter, Mil mi-26 has the max
liftoff mass at 56 tons. It has a 5-bladed 32 meter
diameter rotor and 15 MW of engine power.
So scale is about one tenth of the system designed above.
Ceiling 4.6 km.

One interesting question is the staging operation where
the propeller is dropped and the thrust chamber started.

Also, the cost of the gearbox and propeller would probably
be prohibitive for the whole system unless they could be
reused (and would probably still be).


I haven't found any references to this idea.
No wonder, it's quite bad. Discussion?


*)It's a bad example since it's too complicated of a cycle
and uses nozzle cooling energy for first stage pumps etc..
A gas generator engine would be best for this, but I didn't
find quick good data on their gas generators' powers.

--
-meiza
  #2  
Old December 20th 05, 07:11 PM posted to sci.space.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default booster propeller

I haven't found any references to this idea.
-----
You would want to search rotary rocket
Here's one reference:
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedat...tary_sum.shtml

Scaling that up you may want to research Hiller's work on flying
cranes:
http://avia.russian.ee/helicopters_e...r_crane-r.html
There were problems with using gas turbines at the tip, so research
was going towards a resonant pulse-jet (valveless) design that would
allow even bigger flying crane designs.

  #3  
Old December 21st 05, 02:42 AM posted to sci.space.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default booster propeller

Anvil* wrote:
I haven't found any references to this idea.

-----
You would want to search rotary rocket
Here's one reference:
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedat...tary_sum.shtml


Scaling that up you may want to research Hiller's work on flying
cranes:
http://avia.russian.ee/helicopters_e...r_crane-r.html
There were problems with using gas turbines at the tip, so research
was going towards a resonant pulse-jet (valveless) design that would
allow even bigger flying crane designs.


These ideas are opposite to my proposal of using the torque
from the rocket turbopump and a "dry" rotor.

Also, Armadillo aerospace tried rotors with tip jets and found
it's hard to control the fluid column in the blade.

--
-meiza
  #4  
Old December 22nd 05, 09:21 AM posted to sci.space.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default booster propeller

Forget trying to get deltaV --Just some high into thinner air *mite* be
worth it. That the problem with all these different schemes. When it
come to the question of which is better (ie better than a plain rocket)
the answer it: it depends on the details. Not just big crude detials,
but real fine detials that are real hard to put numbers on without bent
metal.

Take this idea as a example, with a adjustment or two.

So we use a "zero" stage that is really just a big chopper. Tip jets
and all. It get us to where the air pressure is 1/3 at (~30KPa) then we
fire the engines on our almost SSTO RLV. Now we can get much better
T/W ratio on modest chamber pressure engines and we can use a more
aggresive trajectory (max Q is now reduced for example) . But we need
to make the zero stage. Will it help? well that depends on just were
you want to spend your money. It seems likley that just reducing the
payload a bit and launching from sea level would be much simpler with
less things to go wrong.

But then again it depends on how hard you think it is to make a good
SSTO engines that work well at sea level (probably high chamber
pressure + extendable nozzel say).

Personaly I don't *belive* devlopment costs favour these kinds of
complicated small payback schemes. Operationaly almost certianly a true
SSTO will be better.

I see this kinda scheme and its kin (air launch, airship launch)
biggest advantage when we are lauching SSTO at rates of many a week.
Then it seems to be one of the only ways to get rid of the noise
problem.

 




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
CEV "Stick booster" to use SLC 40 launch site? gb History 16 August 2nd 05 08:40 PM
Solid Rocket Booster takes first steps in stacking for return to flight Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 1 August 12th 04 01:13 AM
Towed Booster Stability johnhare Policy 23 July 8th 04 03:06 AM
LSC Room 103, LCCV, UPRCV Allen Thomson Policy 4 February 6th 04 12:20 AM
ATK Awarded $13 Million Space Shuttle Booster Separation Motor Contract Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 October 30th 03 03:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.