A comparison between two possible thermodynamic schemes

for reusable LOX / LCH4 engines.

L. Boccaletto*.
CNES, Evry, France, 91000

As a part of the preliminary studies for the development of future engines, investigations
have been carried out in order to asses the ability to meet the main technical specifications
imposed on the propulsion system by the launcher. Two conventional thermodynamic cycles
have been studied in detail: a “gas generator” cycle and a “staged combustion” cycle.
Considered propellants are liquid oxygen and liquid methane. The two thermodynamic
cycles have been studied in detail, and a specific investigation has been completed in order to
assess any impacts of throttling requirements on the engine design. As a result, the closed
cycle type has naturally been found to be the more promising, in terms of conventional
performance. However, the internal thermo-mechanical loads associated with staged
combustion could result in some very negative limitations as far as reusability is concerned.
The final choice for the reusable rocket engine concept will necessarily be based on a trade-
off at launcher level, because “conventional” performance aspects, such as Isp and thrust,
need to be weighed up against reliability considerations. Moreover, when considering
reusability constraints, staged combustion could be less viable than it is for expendable
launchers, due to the severe internal thermo-mechanical loads.

Nomenclature
Isp = Specific Impulse
LCH4 = Liquid Methane
LNG = Liquid Natural Gas
LO2 = Liquid Oxygen
MR = Mixture Ratio
SC = Staged Combustion

I. Introduction

T HE debate on reusable launch vehicles (RLV) has been going on for several decades, and the question
concerning the choice of propellants is still an open point in Europe. This choice is clearly dependent on many
factors: launcher performance, mission profile, maintenance and cost requirements, number of flights, etc. These
requirements are generally set at launcher system level, but an iterative design approach is necessary in order to
verify that all technical requests are coherent and achievable by the propulsion system design.
In particular, for a reusable vehicle, the achievable number of flights becomes one of the major criteria based on
which the final architecture of the propulsion system has to be decided. Moreover, this additional constraint could be
an antagonistic factor for other technical requirements, as for an example the thrust throttling capability.
Previous studies have already demonstrated that hydrocarbons, such as kerosene or LNG, could be a viable solution
for future reusable space vehicles [1 - 7]. Moreover, some attempts have already been made to run existing rocket
engines on LNG [8]. However, the aim of most of these studies has been to asses which kind of hydrocarbons would
be the best choice in terms of conventional launcher performance, with relatively little attention paid to reusability
concerns. Taking this additional requirement into account, existing engines could show inherent limitations and a
completely new engine design might be inevitable.
In this paper, a comparative analysis between two possible LNG/LO2 thermodynamic schemes is presented, with a
focus on the internal thermal and mechanical loads produced on major engine components. The aim is to obtain a

*
Engineer, CNES - DLA/SDT/CPT, Rond Point de l’Espace – 91000 Evry Courcouronne - France.

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
preliminary estimation of the influence on internal thermo-mechanical loads when trying to cope with stringent
performance requirements.
Moreover, throttling requirements are analysed with respect to the overloading of turbomachinery and
combustion devices, and also with respect to the design difficulties with which one is liable to be faced.

II. Technical Specification and Study Hypotheses

In the same way as with all existing rocket engines, the basic requirements for a reusable engine are relative to thrust
level and Isp values. However, certain other constraints could be imposed, concerning the return flight to the launch
site, the mission and launcher reliability requirements, the launcher staging aspect, and many other constraints
resulting from the design of the launcher system.
Although a complete list of these requirements has not yet been frozen for a future European reusable launcher, we
will work on the assumption that the hypothetical requirements given in table 1 could be a suitable technical
specification for a preliminary engine study.

Requirement Value Unit

Propellants LO2/LNG -
Ground thrust 2,000,000 N
Ground Isp 310 s
Vacuum Isp 350 s
40 % to
Throttling capability -
125 %
Mixture Ratio 3.5 -
Mission duration 300 s
Number of missions 50 -

Table 1: Basic requirements.

As a preliminary comment concerning the figures presented above, one could easily declare that closed
thermodynamic schemes are more convenient in order to achieve Isp requirements. However, when taking into
consideration the constraints on the number of missions the engine has to withstand, high performance systems
could be more sensitive than open cycles. In this case, it may be interesting to investigate whether an optimum
compromise would be possible between thermodynamic efficiency and service life.
In view of these preliminary considerations, the decision is to investigate two possible LO2/LNG schemes - staged
combustion (SG) and gas generator (GG), in order to compare their performance not only from the point of view of
thermodynamic efficiency, but also considering reusability constraints.
Moreover, particular attention must be paid to the throttling requirement, as it could induce severe internal loads and
stringent design constraints for certain components such as turbopumps and combustion devices.
In order to simplify the comparison, the decision is to use the same combustion chamber pressure level for both
engines, when considering nominal thrust level. This pressure level has been determined as the value which enables
the required nominal thrust and Isp figures to be obtained when considering a maximum nozzle exit diameter of
about 2 m, and a staged combustion cycle.
The decision to use the same pressure level for both cycles can be justified by the following considerations:

- Preliminary studies show that, for a gas generator, there is an optimum Isp pressure level. This point is
slightly lower than the combustion chamber pressure level selected for staged combustion. Gas generator Isp
is nevertheless always lower than that of staged combustion.

- The difference between the optimum Isp for a gas generator and the value obtained when considering the
same pressure as the staged combustion is acceptable.

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 - The higher the combustion chamber pressure level, the higher the heat flux imposed on the chamber walls.

Considering the three points above, something of a conservative approach is then obtained: certain margins are still
available for the gas generator cycle when comparing its performance (Isp) and internal loads with those of staged
combustion.
Moreover, for the purposes of comparison, this assumption makes it possible to avoid calculating the damage per
cycle of combustion chambers. This is legitimate because of the similarity between the two devices, and between
their internal thermal and mechanical loads. Finally, main combustion chambers are not a discriminating point as far
as this study is concerned.

A. Main combustion chamber pressure level.

Taking the thrust and Isp technical specifications into account, a preliminary study has been carried out in order to
determine the main combustion chamber pressure level for staged combustion. As illustrated in figure 1, a pressure
level of 15 MPa enables satisfactory values to be obtained, both for ground and vacuum Isp, when considering a
nozzle expansion ratio of 35 and a combustion chamber mixture ratio of 3.5. Nozzle exit diameter is thus lower than
2 m, i.e. well within the range of currently operating engines.

Figure 1 : Thrust chamber Isp.

III. Design of Cycles

The main gas generator and staged combustion cycle architectures are shown below. Note that different turbopump
configurations are possible. The two sketches proposed here can nevertheless be considered as a good example of
existing differences in operating parameters and internal loads, between the two thermodynamic solutions.
The use of boost pumps is avoided whenever possible, in order to reduce engine complexity. However, boost pumps
are necessary on both sides for staged combustion: LO2 and LNG.
As a general rule, boost and main pumps have been designed in order to avoid cavitation for each operating point,
and in particular at 125 % of nominal thrust. Furthermore, turbine and main pump efficiencies have been optimised
for the nominal operating point (during most of its life time, the engine is assumed to operate in the region of the
nominal point). Only few small exceptions to this rule have been necessary in order to reach the maximum operating
point.
Based on these assumptions, the engine components have been designed and the operating parameters of both cycles
have been determined for each required thrust level.

A. Staged combustion cycle.

The configuration of the staged combustion scheme discussed below is characterised by:

- Boost pumps for both LO2 and LNG sides.

- Liquid turbines for the boost pumps.
- Two separate turbo-pumps:
o Dual stage LNG pump and LO2 kick pump on one shaft.
o Main LO2 pump on a separate shaft.

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 - Fuel-rich preburner.
- Combustion chamber and nozzle extension cooled by LNG in parallel.
Figure 2 shows the engine operating at nominal thrust level.

Figure 2: Staged combustion scheme; nominal operating point.

B. Gas generator cycle.

The gas generator engine has been designed using the following hypotheses:
- Only one boost pump (LO2 side).
- Boost pump with liquid turbine.
- Single shaft main turbo pump.
- Fuel-rich gas generator.
- Combustion chamber and nozzle extension cooled by LNG in parallel.
Figure 3 shows the engine operating at nominal thrust level.

Figure 3: Gas generator scheme; nominal operating point.

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
C. Comparison of the two engines.

Below, the two engines are compared in terms of operating characteristics: the main results of the calculations have
been sorted into three tables, one for each operating point. In each table, the results of staged combustion and gas
generator engines are given.

Parameter SC GG
Sea-level Thrust (kN) 2000,000 2000,100
Vacuum Thrust (kN) 2291,500 2315,300
Engine sea-level Isp (s) 309,500 281,600
Engine Vacuum Isp (s) 354,500 325,900
Combustion chamber pressure (MPa) 15,000 15,000
Total LO2 flow rate (kg/s) 512,410 516,600
Total LNG flow rate (kg/s) 146,420 207,490
Nozzle exit diameter (m) 1,914 1,889
Nozzle area ratio 35,000 35,000
Main chamber mixture ratio 3,500 3,500
Preburner/GG mixture ratio 0,280 0,275
Preburner/GG flow rate (kg/s) 187,420 82,870
Preburner/GG gas temperature (K) 865,100 702,700
Preburner/GG pressure (MPa) 33,710 11,860
Main turbine power (MW) 27,460 34,060
Main turbine efficiency 0,701 0,474
Main turbine angular speed (rad/s) 4399,000 1207,000
Auxiliary turbine power (MW) 12,930 -
Auxiliary turbine efficiency 0,779 -
Auxiliary turbine angular speed (rad/s) 2004,000 -
Turbine pressure ratio 2,037 23,275
LO2 main pump head (MPa) 21,430 17,820
LO2 main pump efficiency 0,822 0,796
LO2 auxiliary pump head (MPa) 24,580 -
LO2 auxiliary pump efficiency 0,666 -
Total LO2 pump power (MW) 14,250 14,100
LNG main pump head (MPa) 43,080 15,700
LNG main pump efficiency 0,743 0,750
LNG auxiliary pump head (MPa) 13,490 15,650
LNG auxiliary pump efficiency 0,752 0,776
Total LNG pump power (MW) 26,130 19,960
Total LNG cooling flow rate (kg/s) 86,420 82,490
LNG temperature at cooling outlet (K) 466,400 533,100

Table 2: Nominal operating point.

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Parameter SC GG Parameter SC GG
Sea-level Thrust (kN) 2500,230 2499,980 Sea-level Thrust (kN) 800,010 800,270
Vacuum Thrust (kN) 2784,130 2815,150 Vacuum Thrust (kN) 1083,900 1115,430
Engine sea-level Isp (s) 318,750 291,420 Engine sea-level Isp (s) 260,710 226,900
Engine Vacuum Isp (s) 354,930 328,15 Engine Vacuum Isp (s) 353,230 316,240
Combustion chamber pressure (MPa) 18,300 17,760 Combustion chamber pressure (MPa) 7,150 6,930
Total LO2 flow rate (kg/s) 622,300 630,200 Total LO2 flow rate (kg/s) 240,400 248,840
Total LNG flow rate (kg/s) 177,300 244,300 Total LNG flow rate (kg/s) 72,400 111,200
Nozzle exit diameter (m) 1,914 1,889 Nozzle exit diameter (m) 1,914 1,889
Nozzle area ratio 35,000 35,000 Nozzle area ratio 35,000 35,000
Main chamber mixture ratio 3,510 3,500 Main chamber mixture ratio 3,320 3,500
Preburner/GG mixture ratio 0,389 0,370 Preburner/GG mixture ratio 0,225 0,240
Preburner/GG flow rate (kg/s) 246,270 98,430 Preburner/GG flow rate (kg/s) 88,690 53,580
Preburner/GG gas temperature (K) 1033,600 865,300 Preburner/GG gas temperature (K) 774,100 625,200
Preburner/GG pressure (MPa) 51,190 15,670 Preburner/GG pressure (MPa) 15,620 4,830
Main turbine power (MW) 45,960 50,700 Main turbine power (MW) 8,670 7,490
Main turbine efficiency 0,669 0,471 Main turbine efficiency 0,573 0,311
Main turbine angular speed (rad/s) 5015,000 1367,000 Main turbine angular speed (rad/s) 3036,000 762,000
Auxiliary turbine power (MW) 19,270 - Auxiliary turbine power (MW) 2,300 -
Auxiliary turbine efficiency 0,628 - Auxiliary turbine efficiency 0,384 -
Auxiliary turbine angular speed (rad/s) 1626,000 - Auxiliary turbine angular speed (rad/s) 773,000 -
Turbine pressure ratio 2,171 23,017 Turbine pressure ratio 1,850 14,325
LO2 main pump head (MPa) 27,200 22,810 LO2 main pump head (MPa) 8,170 7,430
LO2 main pump efficiency 0,831 0,797 LO2 main pump efficiency 0,826 0,791
LO2 auxiliary pump head (MPa) 40,970 - LO2 auxiliary pump head (MPa) 36,930 -
LO2 auxiliary pump efficiency 0,666 - LO2 auxiliary pump efficiency 0,614 -
Total LO2 pump power (MW) 22,960 20,870 Total LO2 pump power (MW) 3,160 3,020
LNG main pump head (MPa) 60,060 20,010 LNG main pump head (MPa) 24,410 6,430
LNG main pump efficiency 0,726 0,753 LNG main pump efficiency 0,711 0,736
LNG auxiliary pump head (MPa) 17,770 20,000 LNG auxiliary pump head (MPa) 7,380 6,380
LNG auxiliary pump efficiency 0,747 0,778 LNG auxiliary pump efficiency 0,737 0,764
Total LNG pump power (MW) 42,270 29,830 Total LNG pump power (MW) 7,800 4,470
Total LNG cooling flow rate (kg/s) 86,300 100,450 Total LNG cooling flow rate (kg/s) 43,400 37,990
LNG temperature at cooling outlet (K) 502,200 551,500 LNG temperature at cooling outlet (K) 409,800 529,5

Table 3: Maximum operating point. Table 4: Minimum operating point.

In order to better appreciate the differences between the two engines, preburner / gas generator temperature and
pressure are plotted in figures 4 and 5 as a function of the operating point, for both engines.

Preburner / GG temperature Preburner / GG pressure

1200 60

1000 50

800 40
40% 40%
MPa
K 600 100% 30 100%
125% 125%
400 20

200 10

0 0
Staged combustion Gas genarator Staged combustion Gas genarator

Figure 4 : Gas temperature in preburner / gas Figure 5 : Gas pressure in preburner / gas
generator. generator.

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Similarly, figure 6 shows the evolution of the total required power for LNG pumping.

LNG pump total power

45
40
35
30
40%
MW 25
100%
20
125%
15
10
5
0
Staged combustion Gas genarator

Figure 6: LNG pump required power.

Finally both combustion chambers are shown in figures 7 and 8 (dimensions in degrees and millimetres).

Figure 7 : Gas generator thrust chamber. Figure 8 : Staged combustion thrust chamber.

IV. Discussion of Results

On the basis of results presented in the previous section, it is possible to rationally analyse the technical
requirements introduced in section 2.

LNG suitability: even though the experimental background currently available on LO2/LNG engines is limited [8] in
Europe, particularly as compared to experience with LO2/LH2, this propellant seems to be a good prospect for
reusable engines.
Open and closed engine types with a fuel-rich preburner or gas generator are possible: this choice drastically reduces
the risk of accidents and the deterioration of equipment during the operating life of the engine. An oxygen-rich
preburner or gas generator is not justified for LNG/LO2 engines.
Moreover, regenerative cooling of the combustion chamber and nozzle extension is also feasible with LNG.

Thrust: the requirement concerning thrust is not a stringent constraint, whether for staged combustion or for a gas
generator scheme. Reasonable pressure levels in combustion chamber and preburner (gas generator) schemes are
currently possible without a large increase in engine size. The combustion chamber throat and the cylindrical part
are comparable with those of existing European engines, and it should be possible to manufacture such a device
using existing industrial machines [8].

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Moreover, a nozzle expansion ratio of about 35 could be a good compromise, in order to obtain a nozzle exit
diameter of less than 2 metres.

Ground and vacuum Isp: high Isp figures (ground and vacuum) are obviously desirable for any rocket engine, and
calculation results have shown that for the staged combustion scheme, the Isp specification given in section 2 is an
achievable target:

- IspgroundSC = 309.5 s.

- IspvacuumSC = 354.5 s.

For the gas generator cycle, the required Isp figures are indeed not a realistic objective, and a difference in
performance of up to 9.15 % has been calculated between the two engines.

Mixture ratio: Although this requirement is easily met by the staged combustion cycle, gas generator engines will
be unable to comply. In fact, the turbine exhaust flow-rate is responsible for a large decrease in the total mixture
ratio of the engine:

- MRCE = 3.5.

- MRGG = 2.490.

Consequently, the total propellant density is considerably lower for a gas generator:
CE
- tot = 826.7 kg/m3.
GG
- tot = 766.3 kg/m3.

However, one should note that these figures are representative of a “worst case”: the mixture ratio of a gas generator
engine can be adjusted over a wide range, depending on the acceptable temperature of the gases entering the turbine.
The results shown in section 3 represent the lower mixture ratio which could be obtained when considering a gas
generator engine. An engine mixture ratio up to 2.97 (total propellant density of about 799 kg/m3) can be obtained
for gas generator schemes, if a higher gas temperature at the turbine inlet is acceptable (in the region of 890 K).

Throttling capability: Although the wide throttling range imposed as a preliminary technical specification is a
stumbling point for both engines, it could result in a more severe constraint for staged combustion than for the gas
generator scheme. Currently, at 125 % nominal thrust, the required LO2 mass flow rate passing through the
preburner injectors is drastically increased. Consequently, for a given equivalent cross-sectional area (defined at
100 % thrust level) the increase in the pressure difference through the injectors will be practically proportional to the
square of the mass flow. On the other hand, when decreasing the thrust level to 40 % of the nominal point, the
engine could become more sensitive to combustion instabilities.
In both cases, a very precise turbo-pump design will be necessary. However, preliminary calculations have shown
that staged combustion could be more sensitive to turbopump design: depending on the characteristics of current
pumps and turbines, it may not be possible to maintain a constant main combustion chamber mixture ratio. In order
to reach the maximum thrust level, it may be necessary to slightly increase the mixture ratio in the main combustion
chamber. When decreasing the thrust to 40 % of the nominal level, a considerable decrease in the chamber mixture
ratio may be necessary.
Although turbo pumps could be designed to minimise these mixture ratio deviations, this could constitute an
additional constraint for the design of an already complicated machine.

Service life: The service life requirement is probably one of the most difficult points to analyse. Each component of
the engine is concerned by this problem, and each one is deteriorated by different factors (pressure, temperature,
temperature gradients, etc.) throughout its operating time.
Two major categories of loads can be identified: internal and external loads. External loads are strictly related to the
launcher architecture: at engine level, it is not possible to take this kind of excitation into account without some sort
of load specification concerning the stage.

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Concerning internal loads, two major sub-categories can be identified: vibration loads and pressure-temperature
loads, both of which are induced by engine operation.
At this stage of the analysis, only pressure and temperature are known with acceptable accuracy.
Based on the previous considerations, and taking the results from calculations on both engines into account, it is
quite clear that the staged combustion scheme is more negatively affected that the gas generator scheme: pressure
and temperature levels in the preburner are higher than in the gas generator, and the pumps are more heavily loaded.
Moreover, when taking reusability and reliability requirements into account, staged combustion engines could be
more negatively affected than gas generator engines: a larger amount of turbo-machinery is apparently necessary for
the staged combustion case. In this study, four separate turbopumps have been used for the staged combustion cycle,
and only two for the gas generator case. Additionally, the maximum pressure level for staged combustion scheme
could be almost twice that of the gas generator scheme, and this difference is even greater when considering the
maximum operating point: a pump outlet pressure of 79 MPa has been calculated for staged combustion; whereas
for a gas generator this pressure is not more than 40 MPa.
Staged combustion is also penalised by high gas temperatures entering the turbine: a mean difference of
approximately 150 K has been calculated between the two cycles. For staged combustion, very high temperature
levels could be reached in view of the maximum operating level (approximately 1050 K). Moreover the gas
temperature is quite high even at nominal thrust level, in excess of 860 K, which represents a severe condition for
the turbine design.
Concerning the preburner, regenerative cooling of its walls is mandatory.

Other points: Many other technical points need to be taken into account when analysing these results. In particular,
it will be necessary to obtain a more detailed assessment of the suitability of LNG as a coolant, its tendency to cause
soot formation during transient engine phases and also its cavitation properties, in order to better understand whether
LNG could be used for rocket engines or if a quasi-pure LCH4 should be planned for.
Concerning the comparison between the two engines, one should note that, due to the lower pressure level of LNG
entering the combustion chamber regenerative system, the cooling efficiency of the chamber hot wall could be lower
for the gas generator than for the staged combustion.

V. Conclusion
The results discussed in the preceding sections enable us to state that LNG is a potentially viable solution as a fuel
for the propulsion systems of the RLV. However, the technical requirements imposed on the engine by the launcher
system need to be carefully prepared: high performance aspects, such as thrust and Isp levels, must be coherent with
respect to the other requirements imposed on the engine. In particular, the service life specification could be in
opposition to Isp requirements, and the optimum compromise must be carefully chosen.
A preliminary thermo-mechanical analysis of the major engine components must be carried out in order to assess the
possible upper limit for temperature fields, as well as other sizing parameters. This analysis might well point to
some necessary modifications to the engine architecture, or to some alternative technological solutions concerning
specific points, e.g. the cooling of the combustion chamber.
However, the final choice regarding the propellant to be used and the engine technical specification to be
established has to be made at launcher system level. This choice must consider all the relevant constraints for the
engine, and more generally for the launcher: payloads, mission profile, cost, fuel density, propellant boiling curve,
toxicity and life time requirements.

References
[1] I.A. Klepikov, B.I. Katorgin, V.K. Chvanov, The new generation of rocket engines, operating by ecologically safe
propellant _liquid oxygen and liquefied natural gas (methane)_, Acta Astronautica 41 (4-10) (1997) pp. 209-217.
[2] G.P. Kalmikov, S.V. Mossolov – Liquid Rocket Engines working on Oxygen Methane for Space Transportation System
of the XXI Century. IAF-00-5.2.10.
[3] H. Tamura, F. Ono, A. Kumakawa – LOX/Methane Staged Combustion Rocket Investigation. AIAA 87-1856.
[4] D. Haeseler, G. Lngle, T. Frölich – Use of non toxic Propellants for Launcher Propulsion Systems. 12th EAC, Paris
(1999).
[5] P. Pempie, T. Frölich, H. Vernin – LOX/Methane and LOX/kerosene high thrust engine trade-off. AIAA 2001-3542.

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
[6] N. Ierardo & al. – LOX/Methane systems for high thrust LRE. 4th International Conference on Launcher Technology.
Liege – Belgium.
[7] H. Burkhardt, M. Sippel, A. Herbertz, J. Klevanski – Comparative Study of Kerosene and Methane Propellant Engines
for Reusable Liquid Booster Stages. 4th International Conference on Launcher Technology. Liege – Belgium.
[8] D. Haeseler, C. Mäding, V. Roubinski, S. Khrissanfov – LOX-Hydrocarbon rocket engines and thrust chamber
technologies for future launch vehicle applications. Space Technol. Vol 23, No. 4, pp. 257 – 268, 2003.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics