Some work in my lab a while back showed that the pyrolysis/ablation products
from a succinic acid/polyvinyl acetate mix was very effective in suppressing
erosion of graphite nozzles, presumably due to both cooling and chemical
(fuel-rich) effects in the boundary layer film:
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2009-5421 (let me know off-list if you can't get
access to the article)
Dunno how effective that would be on a metal nozzle; the cooling would
certainly help, but I don't think the chemical erosion is as much of an issue
as it is for graphite (where even CO2 and water vapor are oxidizers!).
If I recall, the actual geometry for these tests was a set of bypass channels
at the aft end through CP grains of this stuff, with the products injected at
the wall just upstream of the nozzle converging region. For a simpler
implementation, you might be able to put a full-diameter cylindrical segment
upstream of the nozzle, build it up on the liner, or something similar.
Regards,
Eric
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
Troy Prideaux
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 1:30 AM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: nozzle problem - problem nozzle...
On reflection, typical (non composite) binders generally ablate too slowly in
typical non turbulent regions, but in a highly turbulent area of maximum
chamber flow velocity... well, maybe there could be enough regression rate to
achieve useful film flows.
Troy
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Troy Prideaux
Sent: Wednesday, 28 April 2021 12:34 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: nozzle problem - problem nozzle...
Dunno. Maybe. It looks more solid resin (for insulation/inhibiting) than a
cooling generator. Typical propellant binder resins on their own (HTPB, PBAN,
CTPB etc) tend to ablate too slowly to produce any practically useful film but
there could be something inside which isn't overtly conspicuous.
Troy
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of DH Barr
Sent: Wednesday, 28 April 2021 12:13 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: nozzle problem - problem nozzle...
I meant these, on the bottom of the bottom two grains with wider throats.
https://www.here-and-beyond.com/Projects/KosdonL3000/Disassembly/IMG_5637_resize.htm<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.here-and-beyond.com%2FProjects%2FKosdonL3000%2FDisassembly%2FIMG_5637_resize.htm&data=04%7C01%7Cjeb19%40psu.edu%7C5a290b87c30f42cda74008d90a06b3d0%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C1%7C637551846179054425%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=EzOVp%2FqPI6wKFCj4ITEUIJ3dgYW41g6EIqhGsFRSmHg%3D&reserved=0>
All of the nozzles I have or have seen are as you say.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 9:04 PM Troy Prideaux
<troy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:troy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Frank certainly knew his stuff, so it wouldn't surprise me. Of the vague
recollections I have of Kosdon hardware, the nozzles tended to be solid
graphite completely housed inside the casings?
Troy
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On
Behalf Of DH Barr
Sent: Wednesday, 28 April 2021 11:48 AM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: nozzle problem - problem nozzle...
Isn't this essentially what ( other than inhibiting grain ends ) Kosdon's poly
donuts were for in his very long reloads?
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 8:38 PM Troy Prideaux
<troy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:troy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
For solids, attached is a snippet of a screen grab from Sutton's RPE. If you
decide to experiment with steel nozzle sections, then it could be worth
implementing some kind of film cooling.
Troy
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On
Behalf Of Troy Prideaux
Sent: Wednesday, 28 April 2021 11:30 AM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: nozzle problem - problem nozzle...
However, there's no HCl in the exhaust (I assume) with no AP available which
does make a difference, but I tend to agree with Ken. Vague recollections of a
static testing photo suggested a rather highly metalised exhaust. I'm assuming
this is a AN/Mg based propellant? Typical stainless grades (304/316 etc) are
terrible conductors of heat. There are special stainless BBQ plate grades
available that are much better conductors, but generally I'd also be worried
about local hot spots melting the metal and burning through. Maybe a really
high carbon content grade of carbon steel?
I have seen short burn commercial hybrids that actually utilise an Al-alloy
exit with a graphite inlet+throat; utilising the bulk material as a heat sink I
assume, but I don't think they were highly metalised.
Troy.
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of roxanna Mason
Sent: Wednesday, 28 April 2021 10:56 AM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: nozzle problem - problem nozzle...
FYI Hagen, SS has extremely poor heat conductivity which could result in local
hot spots and burn throughs. Mild steel has better conductivity is cheaper and
easier to machine. Solid rockets have reducing exhaust products so you can't
take advantage of the only quality that SS offers, i.e. oxidation resistance.
If you have the knowledge and resources a composite exit cone is best.
Good luck,
Ken
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 2:10 AM Hagen Hübner
<hagen.huebner@xxxxxx<mailto:hagen.huebner@xxxxxx>> wrote:
Thank you very much for your very helpful comments and suggestions!
Next time we will use a stainless steel nozzle - and at the same time continue
to try to construct a working composite nozzle.
There are some limitations, for example phenolic resin isn't available here (as
are AP and HTPB, but that's another story). We will therefore use resorcinol
resin and basalt
fibers for the next attempt. Weight / mass is in fact an important aspect.
Hagen
------ Originalnachricht ------
Von: "Anthony Cesaroni" <acesaroni@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:acesaroni@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
An: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Gesendet: 23.04.2021 00:20:14
Betreff: [AR] Re: nozzle problem - problem nozzle...
Wrong carbon probably as well. PAN and pitch-based carbon are conductive and
will tunnel the matrix rapidly. Rayon based carbon such as Enka and C2 is what
is used in nozzles and ablative structures. It's not thermally conductive.
Epoxy/PAN-based carbon will not work for this application at all. Epoxy will
not pyrolyze like phenolic or retain char at the appropriate level.
There is only one manufacturer remaining in the US that produces rayon-based
carbon, National Electrical Carbon Products that I'm aware of. The market was
so small that Enka bailed a few years back leaving many including NASA in a
panic. Park Electrochemical et al outsource it and compound it as prepreg. In
the case of C2, under exclusive agreement with Arian. Expect to pay over
$100/lb. for plain weave, rayon carbon fabric and $250/lb. compounded with
SC-1008 phenolic. Silica or quartz phenolic prepreg is only slightly less
expensive to purchase. If you want to try making your own product with silica
and SC-1008, you can save money but keep in mind that single part resole
phenolics have to be molded and cross-linked under at least 50 psi. and
preferably 100 psi or more. It is possible to vacuum bag cure the laminate, but
you will have higher porosity and lower density than optimum. An autoclave,
compression mold or silicone bladder, pressure molding is typically employed.
Two part catalyzed phenolic is available and can be used for hand lay-up but
its performance doesn't come close to SC-1008 under nozzle conditions.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cesaronitech.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cjeb19%40psu.edu%7C5a290b87c30f42cda74008d90a06b3d0%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C1%7C637551846179054425%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=lfZJnJ8Lf6wYiKaJaDBcgdAok%2FqN7hWjOM25rocED4A%3D&reserved=0>
(941) 360-3100 x1004 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
EXPORT CONTROLLED DOCUMENT: This document may contain information whose export
is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C., Sec 2751 Et
Seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, (Title 50, U.S.C.,
App. 2401, Et. Seq.) Violations to these export laws are subject to severe
criminal penalties.
This technical data obtained from Cesaroni Technology Incorporated or Cesaroni
Aerospace either electronically or in any other media form is subject to U.S.
Export Control Laws including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations
(ITAR). Such technical data is not to be placed in the public domain, may not
be disclosed to foreign persons or otherwise exported without first obtaining
required US Government export authorization and written authorization from
Cesaroni Technology Incorporated.
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> On Behalf
Of JAMES ROSSON
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 12:38 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: nozzle problem - problem nozzle...
+1 Wrong resin
Need to be using a oven cured phenolic novolac or resol based resin system.
The novalac are solid at room temp and molded at high temp/pressure. The resol
based are available as liquid system.
IMHO - There are several aspects of the nozzle that are improperly designed
beyond resin:
Nozzle design requires careful combination of ablative materials, insulation
materials, and structural materials. Most common old school, long burn time
nozzle fairing is produced via filament winding various layers of materials.
The often contain 2+ layers of different materials wound on same mandrel.
There is an ablative layer in contact with flame front. There is middle
insulation layer. And last a structural layer to support the pressures, and
mounting. Look up the designs on AMARM or HARP motors for examples. Even the
venerable shuttle motor is excellent teaching aid in the challenges of rocket
motor nozzles, and documentation is easy to find.
Use of graphite fabric is not good. Graphite fabric conducts heat almost as
well as metal. So as soon as the surfaces sees 2000°, so does the resin, and
the adhesive becomes Jello. Graphite fabric is last thing you want near flame
front. For rocket nozzle fibers, the lowest temp fibers you can get away with
are Kevlar (polyamide) materials. But even these polyamide fibers melt above
700-800°. What you really want is silicate based ceramic fibers.
We amateurs tend to use solid graphite as; thick section acts like an
insulator, and has low erosion rate. The nozzle exit pressure is supported by
casing. But these can be heavy when mass fraction is important. Amateurs
worry way to much about mass fraction, for all wrong reasons. Did you run an
FEA simulation on how many bolts you needed on end closures? My guess is used
to much hardware, that could be eliminated and the mass used for nozzle. LOL
Achieving highest mass fraction tends to be very expensive. Very few folks are
willing to spend hundreds of hours engineering the best nozzle, or the extra
1000's of $$ it takes to achieve lowest mass fraction.
Have flown several "O"/"P" class motors using graphite throat, and machined
fiberglass exit cone. The exit cone had a flange, and acted like the nozzle
insulation washer too. For small 1-2 second burn motors, have used a
stainless steel exit cone. :)
One of the newer technologies used in medium burn time nozzles is stainless
steel or titanium cone, spray coated with thick ceramic coating.
Last but not least: Need to pay careful attention to propellant chemistry, and
more temperatures/pressures. A motor with large amounts of metal has higher
exit temperatures, which needs more insulation and suffers more erosion.
Nitrate based propellants tend to generate complex ceramic oxides that can be
more abrasive than aluminum oxide found in AP/Al motors.
Another design element is chamber and exit pressure. Running higher pressure
and flow rates tends to reduce the exposure time of erosive particles on exit
area. If you really want to understand, try using FEA to model the
heat/pressure exposure of the mass flow.
PS - The suggestion for JB weld is not going to help. JB weld is filled with
aluminum. It conducts heat, and you want an epoxy with filler that insulates,
like silica glass or phenolic micro-balloons.