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

26.12.2012 Views

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

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!