Why variable geometry nozzles are not used on rocket engines

AI Thread Summary
Variable geometry nozzles, like those in jet engines, are not commonly used in rocket engines due to a cost-benefit analysis that favors simpler designs. Implementing such nozzles would increase weight and require exotic materials, which may not justify the relatively small efficiency gains. The discussion highlights that multistage rockets effectively address altitude compensation with different nozzles for each stage. Additionally, the risk of project failure must be weighed against potential efficiency improvements. Future single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) systems may change this dynamic, but current designs prioritize reliability and cost-effectiveness.
granzer
Messages
15
Reaction score
1
Why is it that variable geometry nozzles, like those found on jet engine(iris nozzles), are not used as rocket nozzle to provide better altitude compensation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This video does not directly answer your question, but it talks a lot but altitude compensation.

 
  • Like
Likes billy_joule, granzer and berkeman
While I'm not a rocket designer, I'd hypothesize that it has to do with the cost-benefit analysis of implementing something like that. They'd get more efficient operation, but it would require increased weight, more exotic materials, and (until recently) would only be used once. That's a lot of cost to justify a relatively small benefit.
 
  • Like
Likes granzer
anorlunda said:
This video does not directly answer your question, but it talks a lot but altitude compensation.


Haha! A couple of years back I had given a talk on aerospike engine! Recently came across this video and it sparked my interest again it. Lol.
I think Saber engine from UK is going to have a variable geometry nozzle.
 
boneh3ad said:
While I'm not a rocket designer, I'd hypothesize that it has to do with the cost-benefit analysis of implementing something like that. They'd get more efficient operation, but it would require increased weight, more exotic materials, and (until recently) would only be used once. That's a lot of cost to justify a relatively small benefit.
Thank you. Yup that makes sense. If the cost saved by the increase in efficiency does not enough justify the cost of implementation of such a nozzle.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
But consider risk as well as cost. The video emphasized that. If you could double the efficiency at the cost of 33% greater risk of project failure, is it worth it? That is a question for project backers, not the engineers.
 
  • Like
Likes granzer
It is true that different nozzles/bells are optimal for diferent altitudes, but that has been taken care of by using multistage rockets (different stages operates at different altitudes). The engines on the first stage has different nozzle than on the second (third?) stage.
Anything more would just not worth it (on the actual engines/systems).

Maybe it will be different for future SSTO systems.
 
  • Like
Likes granzer
Back
Top