Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mandelvolt t1_j1rgg9u wrote

Look up the aerospike engine, or linear aerospike engine. They are designed to work optimally at different (edit: altitudes).

4

Science-Compliance t1_j1rgx7z wrote

Different altitudes / ambient pressures, not temperatures, and no, they're not "optimal". You pay a penalty for using an aerospike over a standard nozzle, but unlike standard bell nozzles, they're less bad at a wider range of altitudes.

1

ERROR_396 t1_j1rpnp0 wrote

The nozzle geometry is optimal at a wide range of pressures. He never said aerospikes are the best, just they work optimally at various pressures, rather than just one pressure like with a bell nozzle

1

Science-Compliance t1_j1rs56t wrote

Not sure if I didn't explain well enough or you just don't understand, but, anyway, the point I was trying to make is that the aerospike operates at lower efficiency at every altitude than a bell nozzle tailor-made for each altitude would. Over a range of widely varying altitudes, though, the aerospike nozzle, is, cumulatively much more efficient than a bell nozzle that only has one exact design altitude at which it is neither over- or under-expanded. Neither a bell nozzle nor an aerospike exhibit "optimal" expansion in any real-world scenario.

1

NikeLeon t1_j1rhg1f wrote

Not just different temperatures but also different atmospheric pressures. Nozzles on traditional rockets are shaped differently depending on which stage of the launch they're meant to propel the shuttle. Different atmospheric pressures require different nozzle shapes to properly burn the fuel [edit: properly direct the exhaust] for the most efficient thrust.

−1

Science-Compliance t1_j1rks78 wrote

>Not just different temperatures

It has nothing to do with temperature.

>Different atmospheric pressures require different nozzle shapes to properly burn the fuel for the most efficient thrust.

It has nothing to do with properly burning the fuel. It has to do with the exhaust stream's static pressure at the nozzle's exit.

​

Edit: a very poorly sized nozzle will cause combustion instabilities, so in a sense, properly burning is kind of a thing, but before that happens, just having the incorrect exhaust pressure at the nozzle exit will make for a less efficient expansion of gases than optimal thrust independent of any combustion issues.

3

NikeLeon t1_j1rnd3o wrote

Much better put than I could articulate. I recalled it had to do with the yield of thrust per unit of fuel consumed.

2

Science-Compliance t1_j1rr8b9 wrote

Nozzle under-expansion: There is energy left in the exhaust that could have been converted into momentum with a longer/more expanded nozzle. This energy goes into expanding the plume outward into the air aft of the vehicle that could have been used to push the vehicle forward. You get a certain amount of "pressure thrust", which is the pressure of the exhaust relative to the ambient air pressure pushing against the vehicle, but this is small compared to "momentum thrust".

Nozzle over-expansion: You have expanded the exhaust gases past the point where they are at the same pressure as the ambient air, and the atmosphere is actively pushing back against your thrust stream. Extreme over-expansion will cause the exhaust plume to creep back into the nozzle, detaching from the nozzle wall and eventually leading to combustion instabilities.

A vacuum nozzle can never be over-expanded, since the static pressure of vacuum is essentially zero and the exhaust plume will always have positive total pressure. Vacuum nozzles' sizes are limited by other considerations such as mass and structural integrity.

2