|
|
|
|
|
by qdonnellan
2931 days ago
|
|
We used an aerospike nozzle for our senior design project at Texas A&M. I thoroughly enjoyed the research and theory behind the concept, but when it came down to actually building the thing we ran into a lot of - obvious in hindsight - complexity. The nozzle must be made out of graphite, the manufacturing of which is much more complicated than aluminum, so throw out the door any pre-conceived notions you may have that making any shape is possible. Our nozzle was a three-part component: the inner plug (think of one of those "nose suckers" you have to get boogers out of a baby's nose) and the outer nest in which the plug sat. Between the nest and the plug you have "struts" supporting the plug to allow for a gap (through which your fuel will be exhausted). The plug is secured to the nest via some high-heat epoxy. So yeah, way more complicated than a single bell of graphite, which is probably the #1 reason why these haven't seen industry use (the cost of complexity must be weighed against the cost of inefficiency, both are important factors in any rocket application). I am very interested in the "linear aerospike"[1] engine though, which would obviously have design implications on the rest of the spacecraft, but manufacturing a linear aerospike would be much simpler than what we attempted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine [The main image] |
|
For a turbine blade, you'd use a single-crystal superalloy. The machining is just 3D printing of wax; you then use a lost-wax process to cast it. Cooling channels are built into it.
That ought to work. You don't even need a particularly corrosion-resistant superalloy if you cool it with liquid methane and then let that leak out to form a moving film on the surface.