Autogenous pressurization: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:00, 3 August 2024

Revision as of 15:33, 22 September 2024

Line 15:

Risk reduction benefits come from reducing the requirement of high pressure storage vessels and completely isolating fuel and oxidizer systems, removing a possible failure path via the pressurization subsystem (e.g. [[SpaceX CRS-7]]). This system also increases [[payload]] capacity by reducing component and propellant weight and increased [[chamber pressure]].<ref name=christian1968/>

A major risk of autogenous pressurization is that it is prone to [[ullage collaspse]]collapse if the propellant [[slosh]]es. If the ullage gas mixes with the liquid propellant, such as during spacecraft maneuvers, it will be cooled and can condense to liquid, causing a sudden loss of pressure.<ref>{{cite conference |title=Validation of Ullage Collapse Due to Violent Lateral Slosh |date=January 25, 2023 |author1=H. Q. Yang |author2=Brandon Williams |conference=AIAA Science and Technology Forum |___location=[[National Harbor, MD]]}}<!--There are certainly better references, but has pretty pictures and graphs, and shows that the issue is well-known in the field.--></ref> Thus, autogenous pressurization is suited for booster engines which will operate under constant acceleration in a single direction, but is difficult to use when there are multiple engine burns separated by zero-g maneuvers.

The [[RS-25]] engines used autogenous pressurization to maintain fuel pressure in the [[Space Shuttle external tank]].<ref name="system_ET">{{cite web |title=The External Tank |url=https://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_ET.html |publisher=NASA | access-date = April 15, 2019}}</ref>