Abstract

Advanced rocket technologies are often based on cryogenic fuels which form a part of liquid propellants. The classification of liquid propellants and comparison between its two types of case studies are explained. Nowadays cryogenic and semi cryogenic technology has been used for propelling a rocket. It is the preferred technology because of its high performance. The growing demand for high energy density fuels, as well as concerns about their safety, has prompted researchers to concentrate on green propellants that are both efficient and long lasting. Collation of four propellants has been carried out for semi cryogenic and cryogenic fuels. The Oxidizer preferred to be used is the same for all fuels which have the best reactivity. Cryogenic propellants taken for comparison are Liquid Hydrogen, Liquefied Methane and for semi cryogenic fuels considered are RP-1 (Kerosene) and UDMH with Liquid Oxygen as the Oxidizer. The scope of this work addresses the comparison among the propellants, on their chemical properties, overall efficiency and fatigue life which is a major criterion for RLVs. If you want to buy cheap and quality fake watches, you had better choose best rolex replica watches UK online.
Hot Swiss perfect fake watches for Canada are available on this web.
2023 cheap replica watches UK with high quality are worth having.

References

1. A. Sharma, “LOX-METHANE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS IN SWIRL COAXIAL INJECTOR OF LOX- HYDROGEN ENGINE,” Th Int. Astronaut. Congr., p. 12.
2. D. Mehendiratta and R. Manickam, “A REVIEW ON DIFFERENT PROPELLANT MATERIALS FOR SPACE VEHICLES AND THEIR CHARACTERISATION,” Dec. 2018.
3. Y. Zhang, X. Chang, and W. Liu, “Corrosion Damage of Aluminum Alloy in Unsymmetric Uimethyl Hydrazine and Dinitrogen Tetroxide Liquid Propellant,” MATEC Web Conf., vol. 67, p. 05021, 2016, doi: 10.1051/matecconf/20166705021.
4. M. H. Keshavarz et al., “Reducing Dangerous Effects of Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine as a Liquid Propellant by Addition of Hydroxyethylhydrazine—Part I: Physical Properties,” J. Energ. Mater., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 46– 60, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.1080/07370652.2010.501326
5. Sakaguchi Hiroyuki, Methane engine for future space transportation: Development of methane engine enabling reusable launch vehicle and long term in space operations; Aero engine, space and defence Business Area; IHI Corporation; Volume 51.
6. K. A. Zona, “NASA - Liquid Hydrogen--the Fuel of Choice for Space Exploration.” https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen /hydrogen_fuel_of_choice.html (accessed Aug. 07, 2021).
7. G. Waxenegger-Wilfing, J. Riccius, E. Zametaev, J. Deeken, and J. Sand, “Implications of Cycle Variants, Propellant Combinations and Operating Regimes on Fatigue Life Expectancies of Liquid Rocket Engines,” Jun. 2017. doi: 10.13009/EUCASS2017-69
8. A. Sutton and N. Sedano, “Synopsis of LOX/Liquid Methane and Liquid Natural Gas Rocket Propellant Explosion Hazards,” presented at the AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2019 Forum, Indianapolis, IN, Aug. 2019. doi: 10.2514/6.2019- 4283
9. R. H. S. Hahn, J. Deeken, and S. Schlechtriem, “Comparative Study of Ethanol and Kerosene Propellant for Gas-generator Fed Upper Stage Application, Using EcoSimPro,” p. 7.
10. Z. Liu, X. Hu, Z. He, and J. Wu, “Experimental Study on the Combustion and Microexplosion of Freely Falling Gelled Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) Fuel Droplets,” Energies, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 3126–3136, Aug. 2012, doi: 10.3390/en5083126
11. H. Burkhardt, M. Sippel, A. Herbertz, and J. Klevanski, “Kerosene vs Methane: A Propellant Tradeoff for Reussable Liquid Booster Stages,” J. Spacecr. Rockets, vol. 41, pp. 762–769, Sep. 2004.
12. S. H. Bae, J. Y. Hong, D. S. Bae, and J. S. Kim, “Combustion Characteristics of the Methaneoxygen Diffusion Flame Using Swirl-coaxial Injector in a Model Combustor,” presented at the 53rd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Atlanta, GA, Jul. 2017. doi: 10.2514/6.2017-4685.
13. O. Haidn et al., “LOX/Methane Technology Efforts for Future Liquid Rocket Engines,” May 2008.