16
$\begingroup$

In the context of staged combustion, I understand that burning ox-rich creates complications associated with having hot, high pressure, oxidizer. Some engines, notably the RD-170 and RD-180 family run ox-rich. The wikipedia page for the RD-180 explains this by saying:

The engine runs with an oxidizer-to-fuel ratio of 2.72 and employs an oxygen-rich preburner, unlike typical fuel-rich US designs. The thermodynamics of the cycle allow an oxygen-rich preburner to give a greater power-to-weight ratio, but with the drawback that high-pressure, high-temperature gaseous oxygen must be transported throughout the engine.

However this block isn't cited and I haven't been able to find much in the way of corroborating sources. I have however found some message boards that mention soot buildup offhand, but again, not a lot of further reading that I can find.

Can someone provide a conclusive answer on either the soot buildup, an explanation of where a power-to-weight ratio advantage comes from, or some combination of the two?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I note that LOX is ~70% denser than kerosene, so you'd get more mass flow through smaller/lighter pipes going ox-rich. The gaseous expansion characteristics would be different as well but I don't know how that plays out. $\endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Sep 8, 2017 at 13:57
  • $\begingroup$ oh that's an interesting take. I'd been thinking about how the density comparison might play out but never thought about pipe weights. $\endgroup$
    – randomUsername
    Sep 8, 2017 at 21:01
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, it's probably a small thing compared to the factors Organic Marble covers in his answer, though. $\endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    Sep 8, 2017 at 21:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @RussellBorogove Higher density working fluids lead to less work potential in turbines. Higher density is a con here. The coking is the big issue with fuel-rich preburners. Oxygen rich isn't particularly Russian rockets. The Russians just do staged combustion with everything, the west just does it with O2/H2. $\endgroup$
    – Rikki-Tikki-Tavi
    Sep 8, 2017 at 22:05
  • $\begingroup$ hey @everyday-astronaut I recently watched your raptor video (for at least the 3rd time) wherein you mention coking as one of the primary factors for methalox selection. Out of curiosity was this post a source for that project or did you find other sources? $\endgroup$
    – randomUsername
    Apr 4, 2020 at 2:11

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
13
$\begingroup$

According to the super-detailed and very informative NASA-CR 165404 Fuel/Oxidizer-Rich High-Pressure Preburners, the primary advantages of hydrocarbon-fueled oxidizer-rich staged-combustion engines is that "carbon formation, coking, and the attainment of ignition are no longer issues." (page 133)

This useful rocket engine cycle overview presentation from Purdue University's AAE 539: Advanced Rocket Propulsion class mentions only the carbon formation (sooting) issue as an advantage (pdf page 17).

The book "Progress In Astronautics and Aeronautics: Liquid Rocket Thrust Chambers", excerpted at Google Books here, may provide a clue as to the claimed power-to-weight advantage. It shows an analysis that concludes for equal turbine temperatures and pump discharge pressures, an oxidizer-rich cycle has an 87% increase in chamber pressure over a fuel-rich cycle. This would seem to imply that a smaller oxidizer-rich engine could produce the same thrust as a larger fuel-rich engine. Unfortunately, the book is only excerpted there, and I don't own a copy.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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