1

Goddard’s rocket, the V2 rocket and Redstone all used water in their Alcohol fuel for combustion temperature control. To the best of my knowledge, water has not been used in RP1 fueled rockets for temperature control. Instead, RP1 engines rely on extra rich fuel in their propellant mixtures, not water, to keep temperatures controlled.

Water will mix with ethanol in any proportions, but not with RP1 (kerosene). If water is to be added to a RP1 propellant mixture, it would need to be injected separately.

If an RP1 engine runs 12% rich (ratio 2.33 instead of stochiometric 2.65) then 12% of the fuel mass is being used for temperature control, not combustion. Water, with twice the heat capacity of unoxidized RP1, would provide the same cooling effect with half the mass.

Doesn't it make sense to inject water in the combustion chamber for temperature control in RP1 engines, instead of injecting twice as much mass of never-to-be-combusted fuel? Has this ever been done?

Running RP1 engines fuel-rich provides 2 benefits over the "correct" stochiometric ratio:

  1. Reduced combustion temperature reduces heat damage to the engine
  2. Pyrolytic products of unoxidized RP1 provides small molecular weight molecules which increase Isp.

Injecting water provides both of these benefits while saving propellant mass .

  1. Specific heat of water is 2.08 times that of RP1 and heat of vaporization is 2.15 times higher. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-fluids-d_151.html
  2. H20 is a low molecular weight molecule suitable for high Isp (it works for SSME!)

Notes:

A stochiometric fuel/oxidizer mix of RP1 gives the highest thermodynamic efficiency, but can produce combustion temperature above the working limit of available engine materials. For instance, Monel has a melting point of 1350C https://www.lenntech.com/monel.htm . The stochiometric ratio for RP1 is ~2.65. But even a fuel-rich 2.30 ratio of LOX/RP1 will produce Adiabatic Flame Temperature over 3500C (assumed combustion chamber pressure 75 atm). http://www.braeunig.us/space/comb-OK.htm Cooling rocket engines is a challenge!

The excellent answer to Merlin engine stoichiometry points out some of the complexity in choosing an optimal mix ratio.

Thermal breakdown of large fuel molecules (RP1 is a 12 carbon chain) produces small molecules (H2, CO) which are then oxidized into slightly larger molecules (H2O, CO2). Fuel-rich conditions leave some small molecules un-oxidized, reducing the average molecular weight of combustion chamber gas. This is good for Isp. Extremely rich fuel mix will leave intact carbon chains (visible as soot) which increases the average molecular weight of chamber gas. This is bad for Isp.

In a somewhat related application, water injection has been used in gasoline internal combustion engines to lower combustion temperature and prevent pre-ignition. This allows higher boost pressures in turbocharged engines. It is also very effective at preventing and removing carbon deposits (“coking”) from combustion areas.

Woody
  • 21,532
  • 56
  • 146
  • 2
    You'd need a third pump to get it into the combustion chamber, plus water is 8+ pounds/gallon. Water/alcohol was popular in early rocketry. – Robert DiGiovanni Dec 05 '22 at 02:06
  • @RobertDiGiovanni ... Water is has twice the specific heat of the unoxidized fuel it replaces, so it would be half the mass for a given cooling effect. The water pump could run tandem on the same shaft as the RP1 pump. An extra pump, but same # of turbines. – Woody Dec 05 '22 at 02:37
  • Looking at the SpaceX Falcon9 flights it seems better combustion chamber alloys have solved the heat problem. With rockets the hotter the better. It could be tried, but first crunch the numbers burning an equal weight of fuel and oxygen. BTW, liquid methane can be fed in at a much lower temperature (along the nozzle) than H2O (along with LOX in separate tubing). – Robert DiGiovanni Dec 05 '22 at 02:46
  • @RobertDiGiovanni ... Yes, heat resistance is always good. But as long as the engine needs to burn rich, it is wasting fuel mass. Cold feed fuel is good. But what matters is the specific heat going from feed temperature to combustion temperature. With RP1 (the topic of the OP) the specific heat and heat of vaporization of water outperforms RP1 by 2:1. – Woody Dec 05 '22 at 02:58
  • Some SAC birds did it back when in their jet engines. It's a bad kludge and un-necessary with proper engine design. https://www.unp.me/images/cached/acid/pics/20101223/military_16.jpg – Organic Marble Dec 05 '22 at 04:44
  • @OrganicMarble ... that would be about when my father bought his 1962 turbocharged, water-injected Oldsmobile Jetfire. It needed help with take-off, just like the KC 135A – Woody Dec 05 '22 at 05:40
  • @Woody please enjoy reading here. Not a bad idea actually. – Robert DiGiovanni Dec 05 '22 at 16:02
  • @RobertDiGiovanni ... Thanks. I liked the video. How far we've come! My Subaru STI puts out 50% more Hp from 2/3 the displacement ... and without "rocket fluid". The "Rocket Fluid" was not much of a hassle unless you had a very heavy foot. There was a "add more fluid" gauge and the tank got topped up every few months. In a pinch, you could use water. – Woody Dec 05 '22 at 16:36

0 Answers0