Rocket Engine: Centripetal Force to Vector thrust

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of using centripetal force generated by a spinning exit cone on a solid rocket engine to enhance thrust control and pressure within the nozzle. Participants explore the theoretical implications of this concept, including its potential applications and limitations in rocket propulsion systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Jack Oswald proposes using an electric motor to spin the exit cone of a solid rocket engine, suggesting that centripetal force could increase gas pressure and allow for thrust adjustments.
  • Some participants question the practicality of the idea, asking for sketches and efficiency calculations comparing the added weight of the motor and battery versus additional propellant.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential loss of effective thrust due to the angle at which exhaust particles would be expelled when the nozzle is spun.
  • It is noted that the spinning nozzle may not significantly alter the exhaust vector due to high exit velocities of the propellant.
  • Some participants argue that the proposed system lacks a mechanism to transfer energy effectively from a spinning nozzle to the gas flow, suggesting that significant modifications would be required for any performance improvement.
  • There is a suggestion that increasing the nozzle length could potentially offset thrust losses, but this would depend on whether it could enhance energy release sufficiently.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some supporting the exploration of the concept while others assert that it is not viable without significant modifications and additional power sources. No consensus is reached regarding the feasibility or practicality of the proposed idea.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of gas flow dynamics in rocket nozzles and the challenges of integrating additional systems without compromising performance. There are unresolved questions regarding the necessary energy input and the effectiveness of the proposed modifications.

Jack Oswald
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
Hey guys,

I'm new to the forum and I have a question that has stumped several of the professors at my school. My idea is to use an electric motor with a solid rocket engine on a thrust stand to spin the exit cone. The concept would make use of centripetal force to increase the pressure of expanding gasses against the diverging cone. The spin would be precisely controlled and could allow micro adjustments of thrust in larger engines. Additionally, if enough centripetal force is created, the exit cone could be lengthened increasing thrust by means of an electric motor rather than more propellant. Please let me know if this idea is feasible and any literature that would help me find the solution.

Regards,
Jack Oswald
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Jack Oswald said:
Hey guys,

I'm new to the forum and I have a question that has stumped several of the professors at my school. My idea is to use an electric motor with a solid rocket engine on a thrust stand to spin the exit cone. The concept would make use of centripetal force to increase the pressure of expanding gasses against the diverging cone. The spin would be precisely controlled and could allow micro adjustments of thrust in larger engines. Additionally, if enough centripetal force is created, the exit cone could be lengthened increasing thrust by means of an electric motor rather than more propellant. Please let me know if this idea is feasible and any literature that would help me find the solution.

Regards,
Jack Oswald
Welcome to the PF.

Do you have some sketches that you can share? Have you done efficiency calculations that compare the extra weight of the battery and electric motor and extra mechanical complexity, versus the same weight of adding more propellant?
 
:welcome:

I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you want to generate electric power using a rocket?

Can you post a sketch of your idea? It sounds like a fireworks helicopter.
 
berkeman said:
Welcome to the PF.

Do you have some sketches that you can share? Have you done efficiency calculations that compare the extra weight of the battery and electric motor and extra mechanical complexity, versus the same weight of adding more propellant?

Thanks berkeman,

I have not, not yet. My interest lies not in necessarily how practical the application is in the present but simply in whether the centripetal force would allow further control over the thrust of a solid rocket engine (and hypothetically liquids) and/or increase the pressure and allow the lengthening of the exit cone. I am only a high school student, I am on the road to fluid dynamics but it is still a year of calculus away.

Jack Oswald
 
anorlunda said:
:welcome:

I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you want to generate electric power using a rocket?

Can you post a sketch of your idea? It sounds like a fireworks helicopter.

I think this is a recurring theme; I'll try to draw something up.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
This is a non viable project . No analysis needed .
 
Nidum said:
This is a non viable project . No analysis needed .

Nidum,

I would appreciate it if you could elaborate.
 
It's ugly, hope it gets the idea across.
anorlunda said:
:welcome:

I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you want to generate electric power using a rocket?

Can you post a sketch of your idea? It sounds like a fireworks helicopter.
 

Attachments

Converting that linear thrust into tangential thrust around a circumference that is perpendicular to the rocket's direction of travel will decrease the amplitude of the net force propelling the rocket on its forward vector. Also, an equal and opposite amount of force would be needed in order to counteract the rocket's spin that would be caused by the momentum transfer while imparting spin onto the thrust itself. Both of these concepts are due to Newton's third law. You start out with all of the particles imparting force to the rocket 180 degrees away from the rockets intended path of travel (forward). Thus, equal and opposite reaction causes the rocket to move forward. If the particles apply that force at any angle less than 180 degrees from the intended path of travel, the rocket will not be able to use all of that particle's energy to move forward. If the particles symmetrically departed from the system at 90 degrees from the ipot, then the rocket would have no motion.

However, it does have the potential to give adjustability by incrementally reducing the amount of effective thrust being applied to the rocket.
 
  • #10
RogueOne said:
Converting that linear thrust into tangential thrust around a circumference that is perpendicular to the rocket's direction of travel will decrease the amplitude of the net force propelling the rocket on its forward vector. Also, an equal and opposite amount of force would be needed in order to counteract the rocket's spin that would be caused by the momentum transfer while imparting spin onto the thrust itself. Both of these concepts are due to Newton's third law. You start out with all of the particles imparting force to the rocket 180 degrees away from the rockets intended path of travel (forward). Thus, equal and opposite reaction causes the rocket to move forward. If the particles apply that force at any angle less than 180 degrees from the intended path of travel, the rocket will not be able to use all of that particle's energy to move forward. If the particles symmetrically departed from the system at 90 degrees from the ipot, then the rocket would have no motion.

However, it does have the potential to give adjustability by incrementally reducing the amount of effective thrust being applied to the rocket.

If I am understanding correctly, you're saying the spinning of the exit cone of the nozzle will result in the exhaust particles applying force in a less than 180 degree direction from the forward position. However, my question is would this loss of thrust be made up for by the longer exit cone made possible by the centripetal force.
 
  • #11
Not unless the longer cone increases the energy release of the engine enough to overcome that loss in net force thrusting the rocket forward.
 
  • #12
RogueOne said:
Not unless the longer cone increases the energy release of the engine enough to overcome that loss in net force thrusting the rocket forward.
To make sure, it would be an electric battery supplying the energy to spin the nozzle not exhaust gas. I wouldn't think that spinning the nozzle would actually reduce that much thrust being produced due to an incomplete angle.
 
  • #13
Due to the propellant exit velocity through the nozzle at Mach 1 or above, I doubt that the nozzle could be spun a sufficient rate to significantly alter the exhaust vector.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jack Oswald and berkeman
  • #14
JBA said:
Due to the propellant exit velocity through the nozzle at Mach 1 or above, I doubt that the nozzle could be spun a sufficient rate to significantly alter the exhaust vector.
Great, thanks for the info everyone.
 
  • #15
Jack Oswald said:
Great, thanks for the info everyone.
Glad to help. Your interest in STEM going forward is great. Keep on thinking and asking questions. :smile:
 
  • #16
BTW, do you have a rocketry club where you are? If not, maybe you should find a Mentor and start one...
 
  • #17
Jack Oswald said:
Nidum,

I would appreciate it if you could elaborate.

The gas flow dynamics of a rocket nozzle is complex and just saying ' increase the pressure ' is not very meaningful .

Since simple rocket nozzles are always optimised for their purpose anyway adding complex systems to them is unlikely to result in any improvement in performance .

There is no mechanism for transfer of any significant amount of energy from a spinning rocket nozzle to the contained gas flow .

To significantly increase the pressure of the gas flow would require compressor like components inside a much modified nozzle and a huge input of power .

This input power would have to have a source . Basically more fuel and an auxiliary engine . Batteries and electric motors are not a realistic proposition .

The proposed system would add considerable weight and complexity and reduce reliability for no obvious gain .

berkeman said:
Your interest in STEM going forward is great. Keep on thinking and asking questions

+5 to that .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman

Similar threads

Understanding High Thrust of Vacuum Rocket Engines
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Bi-propellant Liquid Fuel Engine Pressures Before Thrust Chamber
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Momentum Thrust of an Over-Expanded Rocket Nozzle
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
I on my rocket engine thrust equation
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Can Electron Rockets Revolutionize Interstellar Travel?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Hobby rocket engine experiments
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate Optimal Size of Rocket Engine Nozzle for Vacuum Performance
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
Hybrid Combustion-Nuclear Electric Rocket
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
How can Solar Thermal Rocket Engines revolutionize space exploration?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Undergrad Rocket-Jet Hybrid, Rocket + Ramjet
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K