4.6 Article

Experimental study on the thrust modulation performance of powdered magnesium and CO2 bipropellant engine

期刊

ACTA ASTRONAUTICA
卷 147, 期 -, 页码 403-411

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.03.029

关键词

In situ resource utilization; Mg and CO2 engine; Thrust modulation; Fire test; Combustion efficiency

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51576166]
  2. Science and Technology on Combustion, Internal Flow and Thermal-structure Laboratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Powdered Mg and CO2 bipropellant engine providing a practical demonstration of in situ resource utilization (ISRU) for Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission seems to be feasible by current investigations. However, essential functions of the engine to satisfy the complicated ballistics requirements such as thrust modulation and multiple pulse have not been established yet. The aim of this experimental study is to evaluate the engine's thrust modulation feasibility and to investigate its thrust modulation characteristics. A powdered Mg and CO2 bipropellant engine construction aiming to achieve thrust modulation ability was proposed. A mass flow rate calibration experiment to evaluate the gas-solid mass flow rate regulating performance was conducted before fire tests. Fire test result shows that the engine achieved successful ignition as well as self-sustaining combustion; Thrust modulation of the engine is feasible, detail thrust estimating result of the test shows that maximum thrust is 135.91 N and the minimum is 5.65 N with a 22.11 thrust modulation ratio, moreover, the transportation period is quick and the thrust modulation ratio is adjustable. At the same time, the powder feed system reaches a two-step flow rate regulating with a modulation ratio of 4.5-5. What' more, caused by the uneven engine working conditions, there is an obvious difference in combustion efficiency value, maximum combustion efficiency of the powdered Mg and CO2 bipropellant engine is 80.20%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据