2
$\begingroup$

Obviously in the simplest variant it's not complex at all. I've seen amateur rocket engine nozzles shaped through applying a nail to packed clay layer.

How complex is the science behind the shape of fixed nozzles used professionally - in space-faring rockets, in military missiles, solid rocket boosters etc? How much work - comparing to difficulty of other factors - is spent on designing the nozzle for a rocket?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Nozzle design is not something I have done, but I know that verifying the exhaust flow through the nozzle and looking at the resulting shockwave patterns is really important -- even though ideal nozzle shape is a solved problem. $\endgroup$ – Brian Lynch Nov 13 '15 at 17:56
  • $\begingroup$ What would it mean for the underlying science of some technology to be "complex"? I'm not sure I understand the question. $\endgroup$ – sintax Oct 8 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ @sintax: Some problems of space operations require a lot of effort on the design and science front. Some - not so much. Some solutions are created by a think tank of geniuses working for months. Some - by an astronaut with a roll of duct tape, in a minute. Example problem: sustain high temperature of a dehydrated meal prepared with hot water from a dispenser, for long enough that the starch absorbs the water and gets soft and tasty. Solution: stuff it in a space suit boot, let it sit in there for five minutes. The procedure is in operation on ISS since Zvezda got its crew. $\endgroup$ – SF. Oct 9 at 0:19
  • $\begingroup$ @SF. Ahh, okay. So, to me, I'd say you're asking rather about the effort of developing a particular engineering solution to a particular problem. I'm a research scientist in an engineering field, so I sometimes come across conceptions of what 'science' is or means that differ significantly from my own view on the subject and I like to try to understand what people outside my own head think when they think of science. To me, science is the process of discovery and, though not always a straight road, is never what I'd call "complex", though certainly some solutions enabled thereby can be. $\endgroup$ – sintax Oct 9 at 15:47
7
$\begingroup$

The general shape of fixed nozzles is pretty close to a solved problem. Per Huzel, even a conical nozzle of sufficient length and 15º half-angle gives better than 95% efficiency. Bell nozzles can exceed 99% efficiency in much shorter form.

The actual engineering design of a nozzle for a large liquid-fueled rocket is more complex; cooling the nozzle becomes a large challenge, and in regeneratively cooled engines, it interacts with the propellant pump system.

In solid rockets, regenerative cooling isn't an option, so I believe ablative cooling is more common, helped by the fact that burn times are often shorter -- typically around 2 minutes instead of 4-6 minutes for liquid first stages. Substantial engineering issues involved in interfacing the casing to vectored nozzles, but again, shape-wise, it's generally a near-optimal bell nozzle.

Either the Huzel or Sutton book will take you through the next couple of levels of complexity on the topic.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ And how's the situation in SRBs? $\endgroup$ – SF. Nov 13 '15 at 23:16
3
$\begingroup$

"How complex" sounds like a judgement call, but if you wish to make up your own mind, take a look at Chapter 3 "Nozzle Theory and Thermodynamic Relations" in Sutton. Although this edition of the book is somewhat infamously "watered down", this particular chapter still seems good, and should give a handle on the basic theory.

Please note that you asked about the "science", which is covered in the work I cite. If you want to talk about the "engineering" of rocket nozzles, which involves turning this theory into a workable device, that's another question entirely.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.