IPB
X   Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Phoenix - hypergolic propellant?
Guest_Zvezdichko_*
post Mar 3 2007, 09:32 PM
Post #1





Guests






Hmmm... the braking engines are said to be "hydrazine engine", but what does it mean? Is the oxidiser dinitrogen tetroxide and is the fuel hypergolic?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 4)
mcaplinger
post Mar 3 2007, 10:03 PM
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2558
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (Zvezdichko @ Mar 3 2007, 01:32 PM) *
Hmmm... the braking engines are said to be "hydrazine engine", but what does it mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopropellant_rocket


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edstrick
post Mar 4 2007, 08:30 AM
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Joined: 20-February 05
Member No.: 174



Hydrazine (whichever one... there are different varieties, as there are different "alcohols") in this context is a chemically unstable monopropellant. Like hydrogen-peroxide, it semi-violently breaks down when exposed to something it doesn't like (catalyst), forming superheated vapors. You feed it into the center of a "catalyst bed" though some kind of injection system under pressure that I'd presume is equal to that of the rocket chamber, it decomposes and comes out screaming out of the catalyst bed into the engine chamber and then out the nozzle.

Monopropellants are not very efficient. Their specific-impulse (bounce-per-ounce) is sucky, but ...

THEY'RE SIMPLE.

Mars landings ... you need to slow from a few hundred miles-per-hour, not thousands. Atmosphere, heat shields, and parachutes do that. You can afford some modest hover time, too, at a not horrendous expense in propellant mass.

The K.I.S.S. principle holds here very nicely. KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Zvezdichko_*
post Mar 4 2007, 09:24 AM
Post #4





Guests






edstrik: you made it looking like a steam engine smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Mar 4 2007, 10:35 AM
Post #5


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



On principle, hydrazine thrusters ARE simpler than a steam engine smile.gif

Heat the cat, open the valve...bingo.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th December 2024 - 05:22 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.