4.6 Article

Carbon/carbon extendible nozzles

期刊

ACTA ASTRONAUTICA
卷 50, 期 6, 页码 357-367

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0094-5765(01)00178-3

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For many years, SEP has developed C-C composite materials to lighten architectures of propulsion systems, thanks to their high specific mechanical properties kept up to about 2500degreesC. The 3D carbon reinforcement the so-called Novoltex(R) has emerged, and today more than 150 tons per year of C-C is produced by SEP using it. The advent of these thermostructural composite materials have blazed a trail for innovative solutions applicable to the extreme operating conditions of large rocket engines, to improve their performances. The extendible nozzle concept has been developed to optimize the expansion ratio with regard to size restriction required particularly for the upper stages of launchers. The first two tests of a SEP extendible nozzle extension were carried out in 1979, one on a ring design and one on a panel design. Today, nearly all possible configurations have been tested, from the simple scenario of extending a ring from a fixed nozzle prior to ignition, to the most complex one: nozzle deployment while the motor is operating and when the nozzle is being vectored. In August 1995, Pratt & Whitney have entrusted SEP with the development of the C-C exit cone dedicated to the RL10 B-2 cryotechnic engine, propulsion system of the DELTA III upper stage. One year later, in August 1996, SEP delivered the first development item which is currently under testing. When the entire C-C nozzle is attached to the RL10 B-2 engine and deployed, the nozzle diameter increases from 1.1 to 2.1 in and translates to 2.5 m in length, providing an expansion ratio of 285:1 and 30 s of specific impulse increase to the engine. Finally, the paper will describe the design and manufacturing of this huge exit cone and will report the latest test results. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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