Integrated Design of a Hybrid Sounding Rocket using Liquid N2O Jun-Young Heo*, Min-Gyoung Cho*, Hyung-Ju Park*, Soo-Jong Kim*, Hee-Jang Moon**, Jin-Kon Kim** and Hong-Gye Sung** * Graduate School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, Korea Aerospace University, Goyang, Gyeonggi, South Korea ** Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, Korea Aerospace University, Goyang, Gyeonggi, South Korea (hgsung@kau.ac.kr) Abstract: A hybrid sounding rocket using a commercial seamless aluminum tube has been designed. An integrated design technique including engine performance, aerodynamic stability, and flight trajectory was developed. Liquid nitro oxide (LN2O) self-pressurized in a tank is supplied into a 7 port fuel grain of polyethylene (PE). The specification of a hybrid sounding rocket carrying 1.2 kg payload to 20 km altitude at launching angle of 85° is as the following: diameter 0.17 m, total length 4.40m and gross weight 98 kg. The internal ballistic model including the oxidizer feed characteristics predicted hybrid rocket propulsion performance with confident validation with experimental data. Both of trajectory simulation and aerodynamic analysis were evaluated by comparisons with previous researches. Keywords: Hybrid sounding rocket, Engine performance, Aerodynamic analysis, Trajectory optimization 1. INTRODUCTION A hybrid rocket is one of various types of chemical propulsion rockets. A common hybrid rocket uses solid fuel and liquid oxidizer for its propellant. Main advantages of a hybrid rocket are following: (1) safety during fabrication, storage, or operation without any possibility of explosion or detonation; (2) start-stop-restart capabilities; (3) relatively low system cost; (4) higher specific impulse than solid rocket motors and higher density-specific impulse than liquid bipropellant engine; and (5) the ability to smoothly change motor thrust over a wide range on demand [1]. Because of these advantages, many universities and laboratories are researching on hybrid sounding rockets [2-4]. Also, the successful flight of the Space-Ship-One using polyethylene and liquid nitrogen dioxide proved the possibility of the hybrid rocket for space launcher [5]. This research is aimed at the development of a hybrid sounding rocket, satisfying design requirements and constraints. The integrated design including propulsion, trajectory and aerodynamics was implemented for this study. The oxidizer feed characteristic and local regression rate of fuel grain are to be very accurately predicted because combustion characteristic is intimately associated with the mass flow rate of oxidizer and regression rate of fuel. To determine the initial rocket configuration with payload, oxidizer tank, rocket motor, and the other parts rocket motor are assembled and examined by the solid modeler, CATIA. The rocket configuration was finally determined after investigating if the ballistic trajectory and stability of the rocket satisfies the system requirements. 2. REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN PROCESS seamless aluminum tube is available to be used to a combustion chamber and a liquid oxidizer tank for an economic rocket. The fuel is made of polyethylene and the oxidizer is liquid nitro oxidizer as listed in Table 1. 2.2 Design process In this study, an integrated design process of hybrid rocket, including propulsion system design, aerodynamic performance calculation, and trajectory simulation was developed. This approach enabled us to analyze and make necessary changes of system characteristics based on predictions of the powered and unpowered parts for rocket design [6-8]. Figure 1 shows a typical design process of the hybrid rocket: a baseline rocket configuration can be modified through detail iterative calculations to satisfy the mission requirements. Fig. 1 Design procedure for a sounding rocket 2.3 Configuration 2.1 Design requirements Table 1 Design requirement Fuel PE Oxidizer Liquid N2O Altitude 20 km Payload 1.2 kg Chamber Pressure 35 bar Rocket Diameter 170 mm Case Material Commercial tube The system requirement of a hybrid rocket is to carry 1.2kg payload to 20km altitude with commercial pipe tubes for rocket. Concerning the current market information, a 170 mm Fig. 2 A typical configuration of a hybrid rocket Figure 2 represents a typical configuration of the rocket designed for this study. The rocket consists of an ogive cone nose, a telemetry section, an oxidizer tank, a combustor, fins and three launch lugs. The fuel mass flow rate is function of the regression rate( r ) and grain configuration. 3. PROPULSION where ρf, Ap and L represent the solid fuel density, grain cross area and grain length. The regression rate is calculated using an empirically-determined power law correlation ascertained from the literature as 3.1 Internal ballistic model The oxidizer mass flow rate and regression rate of fuel grain are the major factors to accurately predict rocket performance. The oxidizer mass flow rate highly depends on the tank pressure and temperature because LN2O in tank or on supply system may changes from liquid to gas below certain pressure for motor operation. The motor performance prediction code takes account several important factors affecting on rocket performance: (1) N2O phase change which may occur during supply from a tank to injector exit, (2) transient process at ignition and tail off after combustion process, (3) variable regression rate of fuel considering air-fuel ratio changing during rocket operation, (4) variable thermodynamic properties changing during rocket operation. Figure 3 represents internal ballistic performance prediction process of a hybrid rocket. pL m f f rA (2) r aGoxn (3) where a, n are empirical parameters and Gox is the oxidizer mass flux. The mass discharging out of the nozzle is represented by the conventional choked flow equation. 1 m out 2 1 1 m * Pc At RTc (4) where At is the cross area of nozzle throat. R is the gas constant. Tc is the chamber temperature. And is the specific heat ratio of combustion gas. The mass flow rate for the oxidizer is computed the below equation. m ox CD Ai 2 ox ( Pox Pc ) (5) Ai is cross section area of injector ports. ρox is the oxidizer density. The discharge coefficient(CD) is obtained from experiment. To simplify the combustion model, the chamber temperature was assumed to only be a function of oxidizer to fuel ratio and pressure, also combustion gas species are assumed to have reached equilibrium composition. Thus, thermodynamic properties can be obtained using CEA [10]. The time variant governing equations are solved by a 4 step Runge- Kutta. 3.2 Model validation The internal ballistic calculation code was validated by the comparison with the 600kgf-thrust hybrid rocket motor test. Test motor used PE as the solid fuel and liquid nitrous oxide as the oxidizer. Table 2. Specification of a test motor Fig. 3 Performance prediction process of a hybrid motor The oxidizer tank pressure(Pox) is assumed to continuously change. Employing mass conservation of fuel, oxidizer and combustion gas chamber pressure(Pc) can be expressed as the following eq. (1) [9]. Initial port diameter 18 mm Grain length 0.66 m Grain of port 7 Nozzle throat diameter 38 mm Initial ox. tank pressure 56 bar Burning time 6 sec Fig. 4 Schematic of hybrid rocket motor dPc RTc b m ox m f m out g rA dt V (1) Fig. 5 Photograph of a firing test The specification of a test motor is presented in Table 2. Figure 5 shows a photograph of a typical firing test of the motor. Fig. 6 Chamber pressure vs. operation time at pre-chamber of test motor Figure 6 shows the comparison of combustor pressure based on theoretical formulation with the experiment. The prediction data from ignition to tail off of combustion has good agreement with the experiment with combustion efficiency about 93%. The combustion efficiency ( ceff ) is defined as the following formulation [11]. * * cactual C * ctheoretical eff (6) The combustion efficiency 93% is acceptable value as presented in previous research suggesting the value between 87% and 96% [1]. Figure 7 represents the predicted thrust and the measured thrust of the hybrid motor test. The prediction data tends to decrease similar as chamber pressure, but the test data seems to be almost constant. The discrepancy can be due to several reasons. The most suspect reason is that the data error acquired from a road cell during the fire test because the measured value at the end of the test was not null point calibrated value before the test but offset about 50kgf. So the measured data has the error bound at least 50kgf during firing test. However, a detail analysis is necessary to figure out the reason why the ignition transient and its peak value tend to be slower and smaller than its prediction value. Multiport grain configuration may delay and attenuate the pressurization propagated form pre-chamber to post-chamber because the test data is almost same as the predicted pressure history. rocket must be stable so that it returns to the equilibrium position when marginal disturbance occurs. Fig. 8 Aerodynamic characteristics for static stability Aerodynamic prediction was performed to calculate the static aerodynamic coefficients and aerodynamic loads. To verify accuracy of the prediction, the configuration considered for validation is a conventional body-tail rocket [12]. In comparison with the wind tunnel test, it has good results with reference data as shown in Fig. 8. The rocket is statically stable if the static margin of unguided rocket is positive and the slope of the pitching moment versus the angle of attack curve is negative. For reasonable static margin of rocket, the fin was designed through iterative processes changing the control surface size and configuration. The rocket is stable at 10-15 degrees of angle of attack as shown in Figs. 9-10. Fig. 9 Static margin vs. angle of attack Fig. 7 Thrust vs. operation time of test motor 4. AERODYNAMICS AND TRAJECTORY 4.1 Aerodynamics Aerodynamic design determines rocket configuration satisfying the requirements of aerodynamic performance. A Fig. 10 Pitching moment coefficient vs. angle of attack 4.2 Trajectory The ballistic trajectory analysis using 2DOF and 3DOF equations was performed. Figure 11 shows the flight altitude and flight Mach number. The maximum altitude is approximately 20 km at 63 seconds. Flight Mach number reaches at the maximum value 2.25 at burnout time, 10 seconds and decreases after burn out, but increase again after the rocket reaches at maximum altitude due to energy change from potential energy to kinetic energy. Fig. 11 Flight altitude and flight Mach number vs. flight time 5. SPECIFICATION OF THE HYBRID ROCKET Through the integrated design process described in previous sections, the finally designed hybrid rocket is powered by a 7100N thrust motor to reach at altitudes 20km. Specifications of the rocket are listed in Table 3. The rocket has no recovery system like a parachute because the rocket with recovery system has too large ratio of length to diameter (L/D) of the rocket to be stable if the diameter does not increase. Table 3. Specification of the hybrid rocket Fuel PE(7ports) Oxidizer Liquid N2O Altitude Performance 20 km Payload 1.2 kg Burn Time 10 sec Chamber Pressure 35 bar Total Impulse 71,000 N-sec O/F 6 Fuel Total Mass 12.6 kg Oxidizer Total Mass 28.6 kg Total Weight 98.3 Kg Motor and Fuel Tank Case Material Commercial Seamless Aluminum Tube 6. CONCLUSIONS An integrated design technique including engine performance, aerodynamic analysis, and trajectory optimization was developed, validated, and finally applied to design a hybrid rocket. The rocket configuration was finally determined after an iterative design process if the ballistic trajectory and rocket stability satisfies the system requirements. The specification of the rocket is described in Table 3. The rocket’s weight, moment of inertia, and component assembly check were confirmed by the solid modeler, CATIA. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (No. R0A-2007-000-10034-0) REFERENCES [1] G. P. Sutton, O. Biblarz, “Rocket Propulsion Elements, 7th ed.", pp.579-607, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2001. [2] G. Story, T. Zoladz, J. Arves, D. Kearney, T. Abel, O. Park , “Hybrid Propulsion Demonstration Program 250K Hybrid Motor”, 39 th AIAA/ASME/ SAE /ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, 2003 [3] J. Dyer, G. Zilliac, Eric Doran, B. Cantwell, K. Lohner and A. Karabeyoglu, “Status Updata Report for the Peregrine 100km Sounding Rocket Project”, 44th AIAA/ASME/ SAE /ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, 2008 [4] J. Tsohas, B. Appel, A. Rettenmaier, M. Walker, and S. D. Heister, “Development and Launch of the Purdue hybrid rocket Technology Demonstrator ”, 45th AIAA/ASME/ SAE /ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, 2009 [5] Aviation Week & Space Technology, JUNE 28, 2004, pp.28 [6] L. Casalino, D. Pastrone, “Integrated Design of Hybrid Rocket Upper Stage and Launcher Trajectory”, 45th AIAA/ASME/ SAE /ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, 2009 [7] M. A. Karabeyoglu, G. Zilliac, P. Castellucci, P. Urbanczyk, J. Stevens, G. Inalhan, B. J. Cantwell, “Development of High-burning-rate Hybrid-rocket-fuel Flight Demonstrators”, 39th AIAA/ASME/ SAE /ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, 2003 [8] P. E. Papadopoulos, T. Crews, R. Baun, “Development of a Design Integration Tool for System-level Performance Analysis of Liquid-propellant Rockets”, 39th AIAA/ASME/ SAE /ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, 2003 [9] Changjin Yoon, Nayoung Song, Woojun You, Heejang Moon, Jinkon Kim and Hong-Gye Sung, “Combustion Characteristics and Performance Prediction of PE-GOX Hybrid Rocket Motor Part 2 : Internal Ballistic Performance”, Journal of the Korean Society Propulsion Engineers, v.11, no.2, pp. 79~85 , 2007 [10] S. Gordon, B. J. Mcbride; “Computer Program for Calculation of Complex Chemical Equilibrium Compositions and Application”, NASA , 1994 [11] T. L. Connell, Jr., S. A. Santi1, G. A. Risha, B. A. Muller, and T. D. Batze, “Experiment and Semi-Empirical Modeling of Lab-Scale Hybrid Rocket Performance”, 45 AIAA/ASME/ SAE /ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, 2009 [12] T. J. Sooy, R. Z. Schmidt, “Aerodynamic Predictions, Comparisons, and Validations Using Missile DATCOM (97) and Aeroprediction 98 (AP98)”, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 42, No. 2, 2005
© Copyright 2024