Development of a Cold Gas Propulsion System for the ... - SSL - MIT
Development of a Cold Gas Propulsion System for the ... - SSL - MIT Development of a Cold Gas Propulsion System for the ... - SSL - MIT
5.3 Results Originally, it was planned that pressure and temperature data collected in the single-stream tests would be used to validate parts of the MATLAB thermodynamics model. Unfortunately, although pressure data was acquired successfully, the thermocouples used in the single-stream tests were found to have a very slow response time, taking more than a full minute to register a change from 0°C to 100°C when moved from a glass of ice water to a glass of boiling water. This is probably due to the large fittings in which the thermocouples were mounted so that they could be assembled into the high-pressure CGSE, which greatly increased their thermal mass. As a result, accurate measurements of gas temperature could not be obtained, preventing validation of the model. However, sufficient pressure, force, and timing data were collected for full characterization of the single-stream thruster. In Figure 5-7, thrust is plotted against two different pressure measurements from the single-stream characterization tests. Figure 5-7. Plots of single-stream thruster output vs. pressure [38]. (a) Thrust vs. regulator output set pressure, measured upstream of shut solenoid valve just before thruster firing. (b) Thrust vs. chamber pressure, measured downstream of open solenoid valve but upstream of nozzle during thruster firing. 80
Figure 5-7 illustrates several aspects of the pressure-thrust relationship that were revealed through single-stream testing. First, there was an approximately linear relationship between thruster output and chamber pressure, as shown in Figure 5-7(b). The maximum thrust attained by the CGSE thruster in the single-stream tests was 40 N, produced with a chamber pressure of 392 psia, and obtained using the flight regulator and flight tanks as shown in the Figure 5-6 configuration. However, comparison between Figure 5-7(a) and Figure 5-7(b) shows that chamber pressure was not the same as the regulator output set pressure, as had been assumed in the MATLAB model. Rather, there were often significant pressure losses incurred, and these losses were strongly affected by feed line geometry. For instance, the choked flow that occurred in the first testing setup (illustrated in Figure 5-3) is clearly visible in Figure 5-7(a), where the Lab Cylinder (Long Line) points level off at approximately 12 N thrust for all regulator output set pressures above 400 psia. This did not occur for either of the other testing configurations. However, the flight tanks and regulator clearly had less pressure loss than the laboratory cylinder and regulator, since the flight setup was able to produce higher levels of thrust at the same regulator output set pressures as the laboratory cylinder setup, even without the long choked feed line. As mentioned before, it was believed that this was due to the low
- Page 31 and 32: accurate conditions for testing GNC
- Page 33 and 34: Ballistic hops tend to use less pro
- Page 35 and 36: 2.3.2 Comparison of Cold Gas and Mo
- Page 37 and 38: Handling propellant There are sever
- Page 39 and 40: and if the cold gas system was foun
- Page 41 and 42: 3 TALARIS CGSE Design Framework Aft
- Page 43 and 44: Figure 3-1. Scaling of TALARIS terr
- Page 45 and 46: (3) Providing attitude control Ther
- Page 47 and 48: Figure 3-2 also shows the body coor
- Page 49 and 50: 4 Modeling and Flow Control Compone
- Page 51 and 52: 4.1.2 Rocket Propulsion Equations L
- Page 53 and 54: variables in equation (4-8) deal wi
- Page 55 and 56: equations. Equation (4-10) was then
- Page 57 and 58: that of helium (0.227 MPa = 32.9 ps
- Page 59 and 60: thruster solenoid valve, and chambe
- Page 61 and 62: where
- Page 63 and 64: discussed later in section 6.3.4, t
- Page 65 and 66: The flight profile begins with maxi
- Page 67 and 68: hop, any given valve or regulator o
- Page 69 and 70: esponse time was an important perfo
- Page 71 and 72: directly opens and closes the main
- Page 73 and 74: If 1D isentropic flow is assumed, t
- Page 75 and 76: 5 Single-Stream Component Testing A
- Page 77 and 78: the solenoid valve, and a pressure
- Page 79 and 80: As indicated in Figure 5-3, initial
- Page 81: Figure 5-5. CGSE high side as const
- Page 85 and 86: 6 Full Eight-Thruster Flight System
- Page 87 and 88: Figure 6-2. TALARIS CGSE assembled
- Page 89 and 90: stream tests revealed that changes
- Page 91 and 92: Figure 6-5. Original CGSE control c
- Page 93 and 94: other constraints. This was difficu
- Page 95 and 96: variables (such as number of thrust
- Page 97 and 98: One solution to this problem would
- Page 99 and 100: One of the characterization tests w
- Page 101 and 102: or more thrusters were firing toget
- Page 103 and 104: Table 6-3. Valve timing metrics dur
- Page 105 and 106: Figure 6-11. Redesigned CGSE contro
- Page 107 and 108: The imaginary simplified thruster c
- Page 109 and 110: traverse phase of a hop and involve
- Page 111 and 112: Figure 7-3. GNC data from 3-DOF tes
- Page 113 and 114: Tests on this vertical stand demons
- Page 115 and 116: control the belay line can be put u
- Page 117 and 118: accounting for changes in thrust le
- Page 119 and 120: development under the supervision o
- Page 121 and 122: documenting progress takes time whi
- Page 123 and 124: were encountered, it was harder to
- Page 125 and 126: [10] Bryant, K. M., Knight, C. J.,
- Page 127 and 128: [31] Canadian Centre for Occupation
Figure 5-7 illustrates several aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> pressure-thrust relationship that were revealed through<br />
single-stream testing. First, <strong>the</strong>re was an approximately linear relationship between thruster output and<br />
chamber pressure, as shown in Figure 5-7(b). The maximum thrust attained by <strong>the</strong> CGSE thruster in <strong>the</strong><br />
single-stream tests was 40 N, produced with a chamber pressure <strong>of</strong> 392 psia, and obtained using <strong>the</strong><br />
flight regulator and flight tanks as shown in <strong>the</strong> Figure 5-6 configuration. However, comparison between<br />
Figure 5-7(a) and Figure 5-7(b) shows that chamber pressure was not <strong>the</strong> same as <strong>the</strong> regulator output<br />
set pressure, as had been assumed in <strong>the</strong> MATLAB model. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>re were <strong>of</strong>ten significant pressure<br />
losses incurred, and <strong>the</strong>se losses were strongly affected by feed line geometry. For instance, <strong>the</strong> choked<br />
flow that occurred in <strong>the</strong> first testing setup (illustrated in Figure 5-3) is clearly visible in Figure 5-7(a),<br />
where <strong>the</strong> Lab Cylinder (Long Line) points level <strong>of</strong>f at approximately 12 N thrust <strong>for</strong> all regulator output<br />
set pressures above 400 psia. This did not occur <strong>for</strong> ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r testing configurations. However,<br />
<strong>the</strong> flight tanks and regulator clearly had less pressure loss than <strong>the</strong> laboratory cylinder and regulator,<br />
since <strong>the</strong> flight setup was able to produce higher levels <strong>of</strong> thrust at <strong>the</strong> same regulator output set<br />
pressures as <strong>the</strong> laboratory cylinder setup, even without <strong>the</strong> long choked feed line. As mentioned<br />
be<strong>for</strong>e, it was believed that this was due to <strong>the</strong> low