Why do chemical rockets encompass a weird shape on this thrust vs. Isp graph?
$begingroup$
Consider this graph of engine thrust versus specific impulse (from https://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/ion_prop.html):
Most propulsion technologies encompass roughly rectangular regions on the graph. Electric propulsion is the union of two rectangular regions (ion and magnetic). However, chemical propulsion has an irregular shape.
Why does chemical propulsion have this irregular shape?
engines thrust specific-impulse
asked Nov 14 '18 at 14:06
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
4,69111647
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider this graph of engine thrust versus specific impulse (from https://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/ion_prop.html):
Most propulsion technologies encompass roughly rectangular regions on the graph. Electric propulsion is the union of two rectangular regions (ion and magnetic). However, chemical propulsion has an irregular shape.
Why does chemical propulsion have this irregular shape?
engines thrust specific-impulse
asked Nov 14 '18 at 14:06
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
4,69111647
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Acheivable Isp is smaller for low thrust chemical engines than for larger ones. Different fuel/oxidizer combinations are used for small, medium and large thrust engines. But I would like to see this graph extended to MN (meganewtons). The F-1 engine of Saturn V had about 7 MN, the J-2 engine of second and third stage 1 MN.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Nov 14 '18 at 14:47
2
$begingroup$
Speculation: small engines have relatively higher thermal losses than large ones.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Nov 14 '18 at 19:54
1
$begingroup$
@Uwe it'd roughly just extend farther right. Low 300's (solid) to mid 400's (hydralox) is still the performance range for really big chemical engines.
$endgroup$
– Dan Neely
Nov 14 '18 at 21:49
$begingroup$
ISP is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the exhaust products. All this is telling you is that for low thrust chemical engines it is difficult to produce very high exhaust velocities. Only when the engines get above a certain size can they accommodate the infrastructure required to produce the highest chemical exhaust velocities. For smaller engines to achieve such high ISP would require adding too much weight to the designs, eating up any delta-V the higher ISP might add, so they are simply not made.
$endgroup$
– J...
Nov 14 '18 at 23:44
$begingroup$
I speculate that the shape is wierd because the graph is logarithmic. On a non-logarithmic scale, it's probably just a diagonal parabola.
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
Nov 15 '18 at 1:05
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider this graph of engine thrust versus specific impulse (from https://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/ion_prop.html):
Most propulsion technologies encompass roughly rectangular regions on the graph. Electric propulsion is the union of two rectangular regions (ion and magnetic). However, chemical propulsion has an irregular shape.
Why does chemical propulsion have this irregular shape?
engines thrust specific-impulse
asked Nov 14 '18 at 14:06
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
4,69111647
$endgroup$
Consider this graph of engine thrust versus specific impulse (from https://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/ion_prop.html):
Most propulsion technologies encompass roughly rectangular regions on the graph. Electric propulsion is the union of two rectangular regions (ion and magnetic). However, chemical propulsion has an irregular shape.
Why does chemical propulsion have this irregular shape?
engines thrust specific-impulse
engines thrust specific-impulse
asked Nov 14 '18 at 14:06
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
4,69111647
asked Nov 14 '18 at 14:06
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
4,69111647
edited Nov 14 '18 at 14:23
Dr Sheldon
asked Nov 14 '18 at 14:06
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
4,69111647
asked Nov 14 '18 at 14:06
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
4,69111647
asked Nov 14 '18 at 14:06
Dr SheldonDr Sheldon
4,69111647
4,69111647
$begingroup$
Acheivable Isp is smaller for low thrust chemical engines than for larger ones. Different fuel/oxidizer combinations are used for small, medium and large thrust engines. But I would like to see this graph extended to MN (meganewtons). The F-1 engine of Saturn V had about 7 MN, the J-2 engine of second and third stage 1 MN.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Nov 14 '18 at 14:47
2
$begingroup$
Speculation: small engines have relatively higher thermal losses than large ones.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Nov 14 '18 at 19:54
1
$begingroup$
@Uwe it'd roughly just extend farther right. Low 300's (solid) to mid 400's (hydralox) is still the performance range for really big chemical engines.
$endgroup$
– Dan Neely
Nov 14 '18 at 21:49
$begingroup$
ISP is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the exhaust products. All this is telling you is that for low thrust chemical engines it is difficult to produce very high exhaust velocities. Only when the engines get above a certain size can they accommodate the infrastructure required to produce the highest chemical exhaust velocities. For smaller engines to achieve such high ISP would require adding too much weight to the designs, eating up any delta-V the higher ISP might add, so they are simply not made.
$endgroup$
– J...
Nov 14 '18 at 23:44
$begingroup$
I speculate that the shape is wierd because the graph is logarithmic. On a non-logarithmic scale, it's probably just a diagonal parabola.
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
Nov 15 '18 at 1:05
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Acheivable Isp is smaller for low thrust chemical engines than for larger ones. Different fuel/oxidizer combinations are used for small, medium and large thrust engines. But I would like to see this graph extended to MN (meganewtons). The F-1 engine of Saturn V had about 7 MN, the J-2 engine of second and third stage 1 MN.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Nov 14 '18 at 14:47
2
$begingroup$
Speculation: small engines have relatively higher thermal losses than large ones.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Nov 14 '18 at 19:54
1
$begingroup$
@Uwe it'd roughly just extend farther right. Low 300's (solid) to mid 400's (hydralox) is still the performance range for really big chemical engines.
$endgroup$
– Dan Neely
Nov 14 '18 at 21:49
$begingroup$
ISP is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the exhaust products. All this is telling you is that for low thrust chemical engines it is difficult to produce very high exhaust velocities. Only when the engines get above a certain size can they accommodate the infrastructure required to produce the highest chemical exhaust velocities. For smaller engines to achieve such high ISP would require adding too much weight to the designs, eating up any delta-V the higher ISP might add, so they are simply not made.
$endgroup$
– J...
Nov 14 '18 at 23:44
$begingroup$
I speculate that the shape is wierd because the graph is logarithmic. On a non-logarithmic scale, it's probably just a diagonal parabola.
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
Nov 15 '18 at 1:05
$begingroup$
Acheivable Isp is smaller for low thrust chemical engines than for larger ones. Different fuel/oxidizer combinations are used for small, medium and large thrust engines. But I would like to see this graph extended to MN (meganewtons). The F-1 engine of Saturn V had about 7 MN, the J-2 engine of second and third stage 1 MN.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Nov 14 '18 at 14:47
$begingroup$
Acheivable Isp is smaller for low thrust chemical engines than for larger ones. Different fuel/oxidizer combinations are used for small, medium and large thrust engines. But I would like to see this graph extended to MN (meganewtons). The F-1 engine of Saturn V had about 7 MN, the J-2 engine of second and third stage 1 MN.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Nov 14 '18 at 14:47
2
2
$begingroup$
Speculation: small engines have relatively higher thermal losses than large ones.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Nov 14 '18 at 19:54
$begingroup$
Speculation: small engines have relatively higher thermal losses than large ones.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Nov 14 '18 at 19:54
1
1
$begingroup$
@Uwe it'd roughly just extend farther right. Low 300's (solid) to mid 400's (hydralox) is still the performance range for really big chemical engines.
$endgroup$
– Dan Neely
Nov 14 '18 at 21:49
$begingroup$
@Uwe it'd roughly just extend farther right. Low 300's (solid) to mid 400's (hydralox) is still the performance range for really big chemical engines.
$endgroup$
– Dan Neely
Nov 14 '18 at 21:49
$begingroup$
ISP is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the exhaust products. All this is telling you is that for low thrust chemical engines it is difficult to produce very high exhaust velocities. Only when the engines get above a certain size can they accommodate the infrastructure required to produce the highest chemical exhaust velocities. For smaller engines to achieve such high ISP would require adding too much weight to the designs, eating up any delta-V the higher ISP might add, so they are simply not made.
$endgroup$
– J...
Nov 14 '18 at 23:44
$begingroup$
ISP is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the exhaust products. All this is telling you is that for low thrust chemical engines it is difficult to produce very high exhaust velocities. Only when the engines get above a certain size can they accommodate the infrastructure required to produce the highest chemical exhaust velocities. For smaller engines to achieve such high ISP would require adding too much weight to the designs, eating up any delta-V the higher ISP might add, so they are simply not made.
$endgroup$
– J...
Nov 14 '18 at 23:44
$begingroup$
I speculate that the shape is wierd because the graph is logarithmic. On a non-logarithmic scale, it's probably just a diagonal parabola.
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
Nov 15 '18 at 1:05
$begingroup$
I speculate that the shape is wierd because the graph is logarithmic. On a non-logarithmic scale, it's probably just a diagonal parabola.
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
Nov 15 '18 at 1:05
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I'm guessing that the chemical rocket envelope in the plot encompasses points representing actually-built rocket engines, rather than theoretical ones, hence some of the irregularity of the shape is due to historical accident.
10N is quite small for a chemical rocket engine. Such units are mainly used for attitude control of small spacecraft rather than making significant maneuvers, so reliability, simplicity, and light weight are more critical than specific impulse. I'm not sure if it's not actually possible to make high-Isp small thrusters, or if it's just that no one bothers.
In particular, I note that Aerojet's catalog of bipropellant (MMH+NTO) thrusters (which get around 300 seconds Isp) extends down to 22N; below that, they offer catalyzed hydrazine monoprop thrusters (around 220 seconds) down to 1N; the engineering simplicity of requiring only a single propellant tank pays for the loss in specific impulse (and it's probably tricky to get good bipropellant mixing in such a small combustion chamber). These two categories of thruster contribute to the left two-thirds of the chemical engine envelope in the plot.
Further up and to the right, small hydrogen-oxygen engines stake out the high end of the Isp envelope: the Chinese YF-73 at 44kN and 420 seconds, then a bunch of engines in the neighborhood of the US RL10: 65-100 kN and 440-460 seconds. That's the high-water specific impulse mark for production chemical engines, the space shuttle main engine RS-25 is off the right hand side of the chart at 2200kN and 452 seconds. Again, I'm not sure whether it's possible to make high-Isp hydrogen-oxygen engines smaller than ~40kN or whether it's just not done.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:21
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
85.3k3287371
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Would be interesting indeed whether small high-Isp engines are possible, with modern 3D-printing techniques and whatnot. I'd see considerable interest for such engines in the near future.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
Nov 14 '18 at 23:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The historical NASA document "SPACE HANDBOOK: ASTRONAUTICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS" has a useful table, which I will partially reproduce here:
TABLE 1.-Specific impulse of some typical chemical propellants
Low-energy monopropellants________________________ 160 to 190.
High-energy monopropellants: Nitromethane_______________________________ 190 to 230
Bipropellants (liquid): Low-energy bipropellants___________________________ 200 to 230.
Medium-energy bipropellants________________________ 230 to 260.
High-energy bipropellants___________________________ 250 to 270.
Very high-energy bipropellants_______________________ 270 to 330.
Super high-energy bipropellants_______________________ 300 to 385.
Boron metal components and oxidant____________________ 200 to 250.
Lithium metal components and oxidant___________________ 200 to 250.
It seems very likely to me that the "Chemical" category encompasses several different fuels, and probably both solid and liquid fuels, which is why it's not a uniform shape.
Someone more expert might be able to guess which specific fuels compose the various areas.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:21
RogerRoger
831114
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
That table is extremely dated (ca 1958 maybe?) -- hydrogen/oxygen isn't even listed, but the RL10 was flying a 425+ sec specific impulse on hydrogen/oxygen by 1962.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 14 '18 at 19:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The "Chemical" shape exists because of two clear regimes. This is a bit by chance because of the propellants involved but basically its this:
- engines on the left are pressure fed or solid
- engines on the right are various types of pump fed (expander cycle/gas generator/staged combustion/electric)
As an aside the diagram doesn't really clarify the whole range of posiblities for electrically augmented hydrazine monopropellant, e.g.
- power augmented catalytic hydrazine thruster (Isp = 250 - 280)
- hydrazine arcjet (Isp 550 - 600)
answered Nov 14 '18 at 23:37
PuffinPuffin
5,0931733
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Aren’t arcjets covered by “electrothermal” in the plot?
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 15 '18 at 1:05
$begingroup$
They might be, I actually found that particular bubble on the plot hard to understand. N2H4 decomposes, I think, to H2, N2 and NH3, the presence of most of those in the bubble made me wonder what the labels meant.
$endgroup$
– Puffin
Nov 15 '18 at 23:17
$begingroup$
I read that as "electrothermal thrusters using hydrogen, hydrazine, or ammonia as reaction mass".
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 15 '18 at 23:25
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32006%2fwhy-do-chemical-rockets-encompass-a-weird-shape-on-this-thrust-vs-isp-graph%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I'm guessing that the chemical rocket envelope in the plot encompasses points representing actually-built rocket engines, rather than theoretical ones, hence some of the irregularity of the shape is due to historical accident.
10N is quite small for a chemical rocket engine. Such units are mainly used for attitude control of small spacecraft rather than making significant maneuvers, so reliability, simplicity, and light weight are more critical than specific impulse. I'm not sure if it's not actually possible to make high-Isp small thrusters, or if it's just that no one bothers.
In particular, I note that Aerojet's catalog of bipropellant (MMH+NTO) thrusters (which get around 300 seconds Isp) extends down to 22N; below that, they offer catalyzed hydrazine monoprop thrusters (around 220 seconds) down to 1N; the engineering simplicity of requiring only a single propellant tank pays for the loss in specific impulse (and it's probably tricky to get good bipropellant mixing in such a small combustion chamber). These two categories of thruster contribute to the left two-thirds of the chemical engine envelope in the plot.
Further up and to the right, small hydrogen-oxygen engines stake out the high end of the Isp envelope: the Chinese YF-73 at 44kN and 420 seconds, then a bunch of engines in the neighborhood of the US RL10: 65-100 kN and 440-460 seconds. That's the high-water specific impulse mark for production chemical engines, the space shuttle main engine RS-25 is off the right hand side of the chart at 2200kN and 452 seconds. Again, I'm not sure whether it's possible to make high-Isp hydrogen-oxygen engines smaller than ~40kN or whether it's just not done.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:21
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
85.3k3287371
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Would be interesting indeed whether small high-Isp engines are possible, with modern 3D-printing techniques and whatnot. I'd see considerable interest for such engines in the near future.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
Nov 14 '18 at 23:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm guessing that the chemical rocket envelope in the plot encompasses points representing actually-built rocket engines, rather than theoretical ones, hence some of the irregularity of the shape is due to historical accident.
10N is quite small for a chemical rocket engine. Such units are mainly used for attitude control of small spacecraft rather than making significant maneuvers, so reliability, simplicity, and light weight are more critical than specific impulse. I'm not sure if it's not actually possible to make high-Isp small thrusters, or if it's just that no one bothers.
In particular, I note that Aerojet's catalog of bipropellant (MMH+NTO) thrusters (which get around 300 seconds Isp) extends down to 22N; below that, they offer catalyzed hydrazine monoprop thrusters (around 220 seconds) down to 1N; the engineering simplicity of requiring only a single propellant tank pays for the loss in specific impulse (and it's probably tricky to get good bipropellant mixing in such a small combustion chamber). These two categories of thruster contribute to the left two-thirds of the chemical engine envelope in the plot.
Further up and to the right, small hydrogen-oxygen engines stake out the high end of the Isp envelope: the Chinese YF-73 at 44kN and 420 seconds, then a bunch of engines in the neighborhood of the US RL10: 65-100 kN and 440-460 seconds. That's the high-water specific impulse mark for production chemical engines, the space shuttle main engine RS-25 is off the right hand side of the chart at 2200kN and 452 seconds. Again, I'm not sure whether it's possible to make high-Isp hydrogen-oxygen engines smaller than ~40kN or whether it's just not done.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:21
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
85.3k3287371
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Would be interesting indeed whether small high-Isp engines are possible, with modern 3D-printing techniques and whatnot. I'd see considerable interest for such engines in the near future.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
Nov 14 '18 at 23:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm guessing that the chemical rocket envelope in the plot encompasses points representing actually-built rocket engines, rather than theoretical ones, hence some of the irregularity of the shape is due to historical accident.
10N is quite small for a chemical rocket engine. Such units are mainly used for attitude control of small spacecraft rather than making significant maneuvers, so reliability, simplicity, and light weight are more critical than specific impulse. I'm not sure if it's not actually possible to make high-Isp small thrusters, or if it's just that no one bothers.
In particular, I note that Aerojet's catalog of bipropellant (MMH+NTO) thrusters (which get around 300 seconds Isp) extends down to 22N; below that, they offer catalyzed hydrazine monoprop thrusters (around 220 seconds) down to 1N; the engineering simplicity of requiring only a single propellant tank pays for the loss in specific impulse (and it's probably tricky to get good bipropellant mixing in such a small combustion chamber). These two categories of thruster contribute to the left two-thirds of the chemical engine envelope in the plot.
Further up and to the right, small hydrogen-oxygen engines stake out the high end of the Isp envelope: the Chinese YF-73 at 44kN and 420 seconds, then a bunch of engines in the neighborhood of the US RL10: 65-100 kN and 440-460 seconds. That's the high-water specific impulse mark for production chemical engines, the space shuttle main engine RS-25 is off the right hand side of the chart at 2200kN and 452 seconds. Again, I'm not sure whether it's possible to make high-Isp hydrogen-oxygen engines smaller than ~40kN or whether it's just not done.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:21
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
85.3k3287371
$endgroup$
I'm guessing that the chemical rocket envelope in the plot encompasses points representing actually-built rocket engines, rather than theoretical ones, hence some of the irregularity of the shape is due to historical accident.
10N is quite small for a chemical rocket engine. Such units are mainly used for attitude control of small spacecraft rather than making significant maneuvers, so reliability, simplicity, and light weight are more critical than specific impulse. I'm not sure if it's not actually possible to make high-Isp small thrusters, or if it's just that no one bothers.
In particular, I note that Aerojet's catalog of bipropellant (MMH+NTO) thrusters (which get around 300 seconds Isp) extends down to 22N; below that, they offer catalyzed hydrazine monoprop thrusters (around 220 seconds) down to 1N; the engineering simplicity of requiring only a single propellant tank pays for the loss in specific impulse (and it's probably tricky to get good bipropellant mixing in such a small combustion chamber). These two categories of thruster contribute to the left two-thirds of the chemical engine envelope in the plot.
Further up and to the right, small hydrogen-oxygen engines stake out the high end of the Isp envelope: the Chinese YF-73 at 44kN and 420 seconds, then a bunch of engines in the neighborhood of the US RL10: 65-100 kN and 440-460 seconds. That's the high-water specific impulse mark for production chemical engines, the space shuttle main engine RS-25 is off the right hand side of the chart at 2200kN and 452 seconds. Again, I'm not sure whether it's possible to make high-Isp hydrogen-oxygen engines smaller than ~40kN or whether it's just not done.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:21
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
85.3k3287371
edited Nov 14 '18 at 19:02
answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:21
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
85.3k3287371
answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:21
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
85.3k3287371
answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:21
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
85.3k3287371
85.3k3287371
$begingroup$
Would be interesting indeed whether small high-Isp engines are possible, with modern 3D-printing techniques and whatnot. I'd see considerable interest for such engines in the near future.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
Nov 14 '18 at 23:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Would be interesting indeed whether small high-Isp engines are possible, with modern 3D-printing techniques and whatnot. I'd see considerable interest for such engines in the near future.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
Nov 14 '18 at 23:18
$begingroup$
Would be interesting indeed whether small high-Isp engines are possible, with modern 3D-printing techniques and whatnot. I'd see considerable interest for such engines in the near future.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
Nov 14 '18 at 23:18
$begingroup$
Would be interesting indeed whether small high-Isp engines are possible, with modern 3D-printing techniques and whatnot. I'd see considerable interest for such engines in the near future.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
Nov 14 '18 at 23:18
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The historical NASA document "SPACE HANDBOOK: ASTRONAUTICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS" has a useful table, which I will partially reproduce here:
TABLE 1.-Specific impulse of some typical chemical propellants
Low-energy monopropellants________________________ 160 to 190.
High-energy monopropellants: Nitromethane_______________________________ 190 to 230
Bipropellants (liquid): Low-energy bipropellants___________________________ 200 to 230.
Medium-energy bipropellants________________________ 230 to 260.
High-energy bipropellants___________________________ 250 to 270.
Very high-energy bipropellants_______________________ 270 to 330.
Super high-energy bipropellants_______________________ 300 to 385.
Boron metal components and oxidant____________________ 200 to 250.
Lithium metal components and oxidant___________________ 200 to 250.
It seems very likely to me that the "Chemical" category encompasses several different fuels, and probably both solid and liquid fuels, which is why it's not a uniform shape.
Someone more expert might be able to guess which specific fuels compose the various areas.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:21
RogerRoger
831114
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
That table is extremely dated (ca 1958 maybe?) -- hydrogen/oxygen isn't even listed, but the RL10 was flying a 425+ sec specific impulse on hydrogen/oxygen by 1962.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 14 '18 at 19:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The historical NASA document "SPACE HANDBOOK: ASTRONAUTICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS" has a useful table, which I will partially reproduce here:
TABLE 1.-Specific impulse of some typical chemical propellants
Low-energy monopropellants________________________ 160 to 190.
High-energy monopropellants: Nitromethane_______________________________ 190 to 230
Bipropellants (liquid): Low-energy bipropellants___________________________ 200 to 230.
Medium-energy bipropellants________________________ 230 to 260.
High-energy bipropellants___________________________ 250 to 270.
Very high-energy bipropellants_______________________ 270 to 330.
Super high-energy bipropellants_______________________ 300 to 385.
Boron metal components and oxidant____________________ 200 to 250.
Lithium metal components and oxidant___________________ 200 to 250.
It seems very likely to me that the "Chemical" category encompasses several different fuels, and probably both solid and liquid fuels, which is why it's not a uniform shape.
Someone more expert might be able to guess which specific fuels compose the various areas.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:21
RogerRoger
831114
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
That table is extremely dated (ca 1958 maybe?) -- hydrogen/oxygen isn't even listed, but the RL10 was flying a 425+ sec specific impulse on hydrogen/oxygen by 1962.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 14 '18 at 19:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The historical NASA document "SPACE HANDBOOK: ASTRONAUTICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS" has a useful table, which I will partially reproduce here:
TABLE 1.-Specific impulse of some typical chemical propellants
Low-energy monopropellants________________________ 160 to 190.
High-energy monopropellants: Nitromethane_______________________________ 190 to 230
Bipropellants (liquid): Low-energy bipropellants___________________________ 200 to 230.
Medium-energy bipropellants________________________ 230 to 260.
High-energy bipropellants___________________________ 250 to 270.
Very high-energy bipropellants_______________________ 270 to 330.
Super high-energy bipropellants_______________________ 300 to 385.
Boron metal components and oxidant____________________ 200 to 250.
Lithium metal components and oxidant___________________ 200 to 250.
It seems very likely to me that the "Chemical" category encompasses several different fuels, and probably both solid and liquid fuels, which is why it's not a uniform shape.
Someone more expert might be able to guess which specific fuels compose the various areas.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:21
RogerRoger
831114
$endgroup$
The historical NASA document "SPACE HANDBOOK: ASTRONAUTICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS" has a useful table, which I will partially reproduce here:
TABLE 1.-Specific impulse of some typical chemical propellants
Low-energy monopropellants________________________ 160 to 190.
High-energy monopropellants: Nitromethane_______________________________ 190 to 230
Bipropellants (liquid): Low-energy bipropellants___________________________ 200 to 230.
Medium-energy bipropellants________________________ 230 to 260.
High-energy bipropellants___________________________ 250 to 270.
Very high-energy bipropellants_______________________ 270 to 330.
Super high-energy bipropellants_______________________ 300 to 385.
Boron metal components and oxidant____________________ 200 to 250.
Lithium metal components and oxidant___________________ 200 to 250.
It seems very likely to me that the "Chemical" category encompasses several different fuels, and probably both solid and liquid fuels, which is why it's not a uniform shape.
Someone more expert might be able to guess which specific fuels compose the various areas.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:21
RogerRoger
831114
answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:21
RogerRoger
831114
answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:21
RogerRoger
831114
answered Nov 14 '18 at 16:21
RogerRoger
831114
831114
2
$begingroup$
That table is extremely dated (ca 1958 maybe?) -- hydrogen/oxygen isn't even listed, but the RL10 was flying a 425+ sec specific impulse on hydrogen/oxygen by 1962.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 14 '18 at 19:41
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
That table is extremely dated (ca 1958 maybe?) -- hydrogen/oxygen isn't even listed, but the RL10 was flying a 425+ sec specific impulse on hydrogen/oxygen by 1962.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 14 '18 at 19:41
2
2
$begingroup$
That table is extremely dated (ca 1958 maybe?) -- hydrogen/oxygen isn't even listed, but the RL10 was flying a 425+ sec specific impulse on hydrogen/oxygen by 1962.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 14 '18 at 19:41
$begingroup$
That table is extremely dated (ca 1958 maybe?) -- hydrogen/oxygen isn't even listed, but the RL10 was flying a 425+ sec specific impulse on hydrogen/oxygen by 1962.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 14 '18 at 19:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The "Chemical" shape exists because of two clear regimes. This is a bit by chance because of the propellants involved but basically its this:
- engines on the left are pressure fed or solid
- engines on the right are various types of pump fed (expander cycle/gas generator/staged combustion/electric)
As an aside the diagram doesn't really clarify the whole range of posiblities for electrically augmented hydrazine monopropellant, e.g.
- power augmented catalytic hydrazine thruster (Isp = 250 - 280)
- hydrazine arcjet (Isp 550 - 600)
answered Nov 14 '18 at 23:37
PuffinPuffin
5,0931733
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Aren’t arcjets covered by “electrothermal” in the plot?
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 15 '18 at 1:05
$begingroup$
They might be, I actually found that particular bubble on the plot hard to understand. N2H4 decomposes, I think, to H2, N2 and NH3, the presence of most of those in the bubble made me wonder what the labels meant.
$endgroup$
– Puffin
Nov 15 '18 at 23:17
$begingroup$
I read that as "electrothermal thrusters using hydrogen, hydrazine, or ammonia as reaction mass".
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 15 '18 at 23:25
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The "Chemical" shape exists because of two clear regimes. This is a bit by chance because of the propellants involved but basically its this:
- engines on the left are pressure fed or solid
- engines on the right are various types of pump fed (expander cycle/gas generator/staged combustion/electric)
As an aside the diagram doesn't really clarify the whole range of posiblities for electrically augmented hydrazine monopropellant, e.g.
- power augmented catalytic hydrazine thruster (Isp = 250 - 280)
- hydrazine arcjet (Isp 550 - 600)
answered Nov 14 '18 at 23:37
PuffinPuffin
5,0931733
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Aren’t arcjets covered by “electrothermal” in the plot?
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 15 '18 at 1:05
$begingroup$
They might be, I actually found that particular bubble on the plot hard to understand. N2H4 decomposes, I think, to H2, N2 and NH3, the presence of most of those in the bubble made me wonder what the labels meant.
$endgroup$
– Puffin
Nov 15 '18 at 23:17
$begingroup$
I read that as "electrothermal thrusters using hydrogen, hydrazine, or ammonia as reaction mass".
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 15 '18 at 23:25
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The "Chemical" shape exists because of two clear regimes. This is a bit by chance because of the propellants involved but basically its this:
- engines on the left are pressure fed or solid
- engines on the right are various types of pump fed (expander cycle/gas generator/staged combustion/electric)
As an aside the diagram doesn't really clarify the whole range of posiblities for electrically augmented hydrazine monopropellant, e.g.
- power augmented catalytic hydrazine thruster (Isp = 250 - 280)
- hydrazine arcjet (Isp 550 - 600)
answered Nov 14 '18 at 23:37
PuffinPuffin
5,0931733
$endgroup$
The "Chemical" shape exists because of two clear regimes. This is a bit by chance because of the propellants involved but basically its this:
- engines on the left are pressure fed or solid
- engines on the right are various types of pump fed (expander cycle/gas generator/staged combustion/electric)
As an aside the diagram doesn't really clarify the whole range of posiblities for electrically augmented hydrazine monopropellant, e.g.
- power augmented catalytic hydrazine thruster (Isp = 250 - 280)
- hydrazine arcjet (Isp 550 - 600)
answered Nov 14 '18 at 23:37
PuffinPuffin
5,0931733
edited Nov 14 '18 at 23:43
answered Nov 14 '18 at 23:37
PuffinPuffin
5,0931733
answered Nov 14 '18 at 23:37
PuffinPuffin
5,0931733
answered Nov 14 '18 at 23:37
PuffinPuffin
5,0931733
5,0931733
$begingroup$
Aren’t arcjets covered by “electrothermal” in the plot?
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 15 '18 at 1:05
$begingroup$
They might be, I actually found that particular bubble on the plot hard to understand. N2H4 decomposes, I think, to H2, N2 and NH3, the presence of most of those in the bubble made me wonder what the labels meant.
$endgroup$
– Puffin
Nov 15 '18 at 23:17
$begingroup$
I read that as "electrothermal thrusters using hydrogen, hydrazine, or ammonia as reaction mass".
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 15 '18 at 23:25
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Aren’t arcjets covered by “electrothermal” in the plot?
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 15 '18 at 1:05
$begingroup$
They might be, I actually found that particular bubble on the plot hard to understand. N2H4 decomposes, I think, to H2, N2 and NH3, the presence of most of those in the bubble made me wonder what the labels meant.
$endgroup$
– Puffin
Nov 15 '18 at 23:17
$begingroup$
I read that as "electrothermal thrusters using hydrogen, hydrazine, or ammonia as reaction mass".
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 15 '18 at 23:25
$begingroup$
Aren’t arcjets covered by “electrothermal” in the plot?
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 15 '18 at 1:05
$begingroup$
Aren’t arcjets covered by “electrothermal” in the plot?
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 15 '18 at 1:05
$begingroup$
They might be, I actually found that particular bubble on the plot hard to understand. N2H4 decomposes, I think, to H2, N2 and NH3, the presence of most of those in the bubble made me wonder what the labels meant.
$endgroup$
– Puffin
Nov 15 '18 at 23:17
$begingroup$
They might be, I actually found that particular bubble on the plot hard to understand. N2H4 decomposes, I think, to H2, N2 and NH3, the presence of most of those in the bubble made me wonder what the labels meant.
$endgroup$
– Puffin
Nov 15 '18 at 23:17
$begingroup$
I read that as "electrothermal thrusters using hydrogen, hydrazine, or ammonia as reaction mass".
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 15 '18 at 23:25
$begingroup$
I read that as "electrothermal thrusters using hydrogen, hydrazine, or ammonia as reaction mass".
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Nov 15 '18 at 23:25
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32006%2fwhy-do-chemical-rockets-encompass-a-weird-shape-on-this-thrust-vs-isp-graph%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Acheivable Isp is smaller for low thrust chemical engines than for larger ones. Different fuel/oxidizer combinations are used for small, medium and large thrust engines. But I would like to see this graph extended to MN (meganewtons). The F-1 engine of Saturn V had about 7 MN, the J-2 engine of second and third stage 1 MN.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Nov 14 '18 at 14:47
2
$begingroup$
Speculation: small engines have relatively higher thermal losses than large ones.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Nov 14 '18 at 19:54
1
$begingroup$
@Uwe it'd roughly just extend farther right. Low 300's (solid) to mid 400's (hydralox) is still the performance range for really big chemical engines.
$endgroup$
– Dan Neely
Nov 14 '18 at 21:49
$begingroup$
ISP is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the exhaust products. All this is telling you is that for low thrust chemical engines it is difficult to produce very high exhaust velocities. Only when the engines get above a certain size can they accommodate the infrastructure required to produce the highest chemical exhaust velocities. For smaller engines to achieve such high ISP would require adding too much weight to the designs, eating up any delta-V the higher ISP might add, so they are simply not made.
$endgroup$
– J...
Nov 14 '18 at 23:44
$begingroup$
I speculate that the shape is wierd because the graph is logarithmic. On a non-logarithmic scale, it's probably just a diagonal parabola.
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
Nov 15 '18 at 1:05