1
AE 3310
Introduction to Aerospace Vehicle Performance
18.
Rocket Engines and Launch Vehicles
18.1 Momentum and Thrust Equation
18.2 Specific Impulse
18.3 Rocket Equation
18.4 Rocket Mass Relationships
Rocket Performance Thrust Equation
We will derive the thrust equation by starting with conservation
of momentum using an example of a static thrust test for a
rocket on a test stand.
Assumptions:
1. Static (test stand is not moving)
2. Steady exit velocity (ue) and steady propellant flow rate ( m&)
3. Quasi-1D flow
Rocket Performance Thrust Equation
&e
mu
d
&
F
u
dV
u
dm
x dt x
x
CV
CS
Sum of forces
applied to the
CV (Solid body
on the fluid)
(onlycareaboutx
directionfor1Dflow)
Change in total momentum
instantaneously contained
within CV
(CVitselfisnotacceleratingfora
staticteststand)
Net flow-rate
of momentum
leaving the CV
(steadyexitvelocityand
propellantflowrate)
Rocket Performance Thrust Equation
1D-Force Summation (for left-hand side of momentum
equation):
F T p p A
Substitute into Momentum Equation: T ( p0 pe ) Ae mu
&e
& e pe p0 Ae
T mu
Optimumexpansionwhenpe=p0and2ndtermgoestozero
Overexpansion:pe<p0(degradesthrust)
Underexpansion:pe>p0(improvesthrust?No,becauseueimpacted)
Rocket Performance Specific Impulse
Sometimes convenient to define equivalent exhaust velocity:
pe p0
ueq ue
Ae
m&
& eq
T mu
WherethrusthasunitsofNewtons:
kg m
2
s
[N]
Thrust is an instantaneous measure of the ability of a rocket to
accelerate a mass. Impulse measures the total momentum
gain over the course of an entire burn:
& eqdt m pueq
I Tdt mu
WhereimpulsehasunitsofNewtonseconds:
kg m
N s
s
If we normalize the impulse by the propellant mass, we get a
measure of efficiency (impulse per unit mass of propellant):
I
T
ueq
m p m&
Withunits:
N s
m
kg
s
Rocket Performance Specific Impulse
By convention, we typically define a specific impulse which is
the impulse per weight of fuel on Earth:
ueq
I
I sp
mp gE gE
Wherespecificimpulsehasunitsofseconds:
N s
m
s
and
9.8
E
m
s2
kg 2
s
The gravity term just provides a common reference point to
compare rocket fuel efficiencies. An efficient fuel minimizes the
mass of fuel required to achieve a certain impulse, and thus
higher Isp is desired.
Rocket Performance Rocket Equation
u
Static thrust test is a simplified model because
the engine mass doesnt change.
In reality, propellant mass (especially for launch
vehicles) accounts for a majority of the initial
mass, and the vehicle mass varies a lot over the
course of a burn.
MgE
dm
ue
At initial time, t0, the mass of the vehicle is M and
the velocity is u.
At time t0 + dt, the mass of the vehicle is M dm,
the velocity is u + du, and the incremental
propellant mass dm has an exhaust velocity ue.
Rocket Performance Rocket Equation
u
Recall the momentum equation, now aligned in
the u-direction:
d
F
u
udV udm&
dt CV
CS
Since the vehicle is no longer fixed to the stand,
we define the net forces on the system in the udirection:
F p p A D Mg cos
Forcedueto Aerodynamic Componentof
dragforce
pressure
weightopposing
differentialat
thrustintheu
nozzleexit
direction
MgE
The instantaneous change in momentum inside
the CV is no longer 0:
d
d
udV
M dm u du Mu
dt
dt
dm
CV
ue
negligible
d
d
udV Mu Mdu udm dmdu Mu
dt CV
dt
d
du
&
udV M
mu
dt CV
dt
Rocket Performance Rocket Equation
u
Recall the momentum equation, now aligned in
the u-direction:
d
F
u
udV udm&
dt CV
CS
Since the vehicle is moving, the net flow-rate of
momentum leaving the CV is as follows:
& mu
&
udm& mu
CS
MgE
Substituting terms into the momentum equation:
pe p0 Ae D Mg E cos M
du
& mu
& mu
&e
mu
dt
Solving for the acceleration term:
du 1
D
& e pe p0 Ae g E cos
mu
dt M
M
dm
ue
& eq
mu
du m&
D
ueq g E cos
dt M
M
Rocket Performance Rocket Equation
u
du m&
D
ueq g E cos
dt M
M
Multiply through by dt:
dm
D
dM
D
ueq g E cos dt
ueq g E cos
dt
M
M
M
M
Sign flip because: dm dM
du
MgE
To find required u (or delta-V), integrate.
For simplified formulation make the following
assumptions:
Negligible drag (D = 0)
Negligible gravity (Remove gE term)
Equivalent exhaust velocity (ueq) approximately constant
dm
uf
du u ueq
Mf
Mf
dM
M
ueq ln
ueq ln
M
M
Mf
Substitute definition of specific impulse:
ue
M
u I sp g E ln
Mf
The Rocket
Equation
Here,Mwithoutasubscriptdenotes
theinitialmassoftherocket.
10
Rocket Mass Relationships
Often when comparing performance of rocket engines, it
becomes useful to decompose the mass terms:
M f M propellant M payload M structure M propellant
M
Mass Ratio =
Mf
Mf
M payload M structure
Additionally, it can be useful to define other mass ratios,
including the payload ratio () and the structural coefficient ():
M structure
M payload
M structure M propellant
M
Substituting these terms back into the rocket equation:
M payload M structure M propellant
M
1
u I sp g E ln
I sp g E ln
I sp g E ln
Mf
M
(1
payload
structure
As an exercise, try to make substitutions to convince yourself
the above expression is true.
11
Rocket Mass Relationships
Notethattheseresultsarewithoutgravitationallossesintherocketequation!
Thesituationismuchworseforalaunchvehicle!
12
Rocket Mass Relationships Electric Propulsion
LEOto
Moon/Mars
Transfer
EarthtoLEO
Transfer
u I sp g E ln
SolidRocket
Propellant
Liquid
Hydrocarbon
Propellant
Liquid
Hydrogen
Propellant
Electric
Propulsion
Propellant
13
Rocket Mass Relationships
From the previous two plots, it would seem that the achievable
payloads are very limited for solid and liquid propellant types.
So why is electric propulsion only used for in-space propulsion
architectures and not launch vehicles?
We are missing a comparison of the thrust capability of these
types of propulsion architectures:
Electric propulsion devices feature high specific impulse, but at
very low thrust levels.
14
15
Rocket Mass Relationships
Another useful mass relationship is the propellant ratio ():
M propellant
M
M propellant
M payload M structure M propellant
Mf
M
To relate these three mass ratios, start with a trivial definition:
M payload M structure M propellant
M
M
1
structure
M
M
M
M
M
Rearranging terms:
M structure
M
Now recalling the definition of the structural coefficient:
M structure
M structure
M structure M propellant M M payload
M structure M M payload
1
M
M
Rocket Mass Relationships
M structure
1
1 1
M
Solving for :
1
1 1
1
Thus we have a single equation relating these three mass
ratios.
16
Rocket Mass Relationships
As can be seen, payload fraction varies linearly with propellant
ratio, with the slope set by the structural coefficient.
17
18
Example Problem 1
A launch vehicle places a mass M = 125,000-kg with a payload
fraction = 0.3 into LEO. The transfer stage must supply a V
of 4.3-km/s to put the spacecraft on a Mars transfer orbit.
Someuseful
equations:
1
u I sp g E ln
(1
tburn
M propellant
m&p
T m&p ueq m&p I sp g E
1
1
>19,000years!
Lessons from Example Problem 1
1. This solid rocket motor is not a feasible transfer stage, because the
specific impulse is too low to achieve the necessary v for a payload
fraction of = 0.3.
2. The liquid rocket engine is the most feasible architecture, with a
reasonable structural coefficient of = 0.11 and enough thrust to
achieve a reasonably low burn time.
3. While the electric propulsion at first seems like a reasonable
architecture choice due to its high specific impulse and low propellant
ratio, the thrust is too low and the burn time is much too long.
Low-thrust electric propulsion architectures actually work by applying
continuous thrust as opposed to our instantaneous assumption (requires
different performance equations)
Can achieve high-speeds over a long period of time (deep-space missions)
Also can be used for applications that require small v, such as orbital
correction maneuvers or attitude control
Chemical propulsion engines are typically energy-limited, whereas electric
propulsion devices are typically power-limited
19
20
Example Problem 2
A satellite with a 500-kg gross mass is launched into an orbit
with an inclination angle of 60. The satellite needs to transition
to an equatorial orbit at the apoapsis of the current orbit, when
the velocity equals 10 km/s. What is the maximum mass that
can be delivered to the equatorial orbit using a chemical
propellant with Isp = 300-seconds? an electric propulsion
architecture with Isp = 1,000-seconds? When can each of these
be used?
2v
km
i
60
2
v
sin
2
v
sin
30
10
2
s
2
v 2v sin
IfIsp=300s:
Mf
IfIsp=1000s:
Mf
M
e
v
I sp g E
M
e
v
I sp g E
(500 kg)
10000 m/s
300 s 9.8 m/s2
(500 kg)
10000 m/s
1000 s 9.8 m/s 2
16.66 kg
180.22 kg
Lessons from Example 2
21
1. If the only goal was to deliver the maximum mass to the
equatorial orbit, the electric propulsion architecture would be
chosen every time.
2. Considering the lessons learned about burn-time from
Example Problem 1, we can guess the chemical propulsion
burn would take on the order of seconds, whereas the
electric propulsion burn would take on the order of months.
3. There is a tradeoff of payload fraction and burn time
between these propulsion architectures:
If we need to deliver small payloads to orbit quickly, we would
choose chemical propulsion
If we can wait longer, we can deliver larger payloads to orbit with
electric propulsion
