Wall heat flux measurements in a 1.5 in. diameter circular cross-section rocket chamber for a uni-element shear coaxial injector element operating on gaseous oxygen (GOz)/gaseous hydrogen (GH,) propellants are presented. The wall heat flux measurements were made using arrays of Gardon type heat flux gauges and coaxial thermocouple instrumentation. Wall heat flux measurements were made for two cases. For the first case, GOZ/GHz oxidizer-rich (O/F=l65) and fuel-rich preburners (O/F=1.09) integrated with the main chamber were utilized to provide vitiated hot fuel and oxidizer to the study shear coaxial injector element. For the second case, the preburners were removed and ambient temperature gaseous oxygen/gaseous hydrogen propellants were supplied to the study injector. Experiments were conducted at four chamber pressures of 750, 600, 450 and 300psia for each case. The overall mixture ratio for the preburner case was 6.6, whereas for the ambient propellant case, the mixture ratio was 6.0. Total propellant flow was nominally 0.27-0.29 Ibm/s for the 750 psia case with flowrates scaled down linearly for lower chamber pressures. The axial heat flux profile results for both the preburner and ambient propellant cases show peak heat flux levels at axial locations between 2.0 and 3.0 in. from the injector face. The maximum heat flux level was about two times greater for the preburner case. This is attributed to the higher injector fuel-to-oxidizer momentum flux ratio that promotes mixing and higher initial propellant temperature for the preburner case which results in a shorter reaction zone. The axial heat flux profiles were also scaled with respect to the chamber pressure to the power 0.8. The results at the four chamber pressures for both cases collapsed to a single profile indicating that at least to first approximation, the basic fluid dynamic structures in the flow field are pressure independent as long as the chamberhnjectorhozzle geometry and injection velocities remain the same.Graduate Student, Student Member AIAA.: Research Associate, Member AIAA.

No abstract

Hydrazine propellant has historically been used as a rocket thruster monopropellant since the mid-1960s. Mission managers are well aware of its characteristics and performance. However, it is a known toxic chemical and a wide effort is underway to reduce and/or eliminate its use worldwide. Several new propellant combinations have been developed in the last few years which tout or promise to provide same or better performance as hydrazine while being "non-toxic" or "green". Yet, there is no consistent definition for what constitutes "non-toxic" or "green", and thus no good figure of merit for which to compare. This paper seeks to review the three major categories of figures of merit, and discusses how they might be used to assess the viability of a propellant.

No abstract

The use of non-toxic propellants in future exploration vehicles would enable safer, more cost effective mission scenarios. One promising "green" alternative to existing hypergols is liquid methane/liquid oxygen. To demonstrate performance and prove feasibility of this propellant combination, a 100lb f LO 2 /LCH 4 engine was developed and tested under the NASA Propulsion and Cryogenic Advanced Development (PCAD) project. Since high ignition energy is a perceived drawback of this propellant combination, a test program was performed to explore ignition performance and reliability versus delivered spark energy. The sensitivity of ignition to spark timing and repetition rate was also examined. Three different exciter units were used with the engine"s augmented (torch) igniter. Propellant temperature was also varied within the liquid range. Captured waveforms indicated spark behavior in hot fire conditions was inconsistent compared to the wellbehaved dry sparks (in quiescent, room air). The escalating pressure and flow environment increases spark impedance and may at some point compromise an exciter"s ability to deliver a spark. Reduced spark energies of these sparks result in more erratic ignitions and adversely affect ignition probability. The timing of the sparks relative to the pressure/flow conditions also impacted the probability of ignition. Sparks occurring early in the flow could trigger ignition with energies as low as 1-6mJ, though multiple, similarly timed sparks of 55-75mJ were required for reliable ignition. An optimum time interval for spark application and ignition coincided with propellant introduction to the igniter and engine. Shifts of ignition timing were manifested by changes in the characteristics of the resulting ignition.