On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Ian Woollard wrote:
> And there's a further point, that the article mentions that this
> technology might be needed for orbital taxis, (but then never mentions
> why you would want the high chamber pressure that helps cause these
> problems in such an engine anyway- you very probably don't...
There is *some* benefit to be had from high chamber pressure even in
vacuum. Yes, you could get the same expansion ratio at lower chamber
pressure just by making the nozzle longer... but you would take a small
performance penalty from things like nozzle drag and minimum-gauge issues.
And higher pressure suppresses dissociation, so the flame is a bit hotter
and that helps a little bit too.
Mind you, most designers would conclude that it's far more trouble than
it's worth. But NASA rocketry has a long history of obsession with
performance regardless of practical issues.
Henry Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
