Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thrust profiles of solid rocket motors are usually determined ahead of time by propellant composition and grain design. Traditional techniques for active thrust modulation use a moveable pintle to dynamically change the nozzle throat diameter, increasing the chamber pressure and therefore thrust. With this approach, high chamber pressures must be endured with only modest increases in thrust. Alternatively, it has been shown that spinning a solid rocket motor on its longitudinal axis can increase the burning rate of the propellant and therefore the thrust without the resulting high chamber pressures. Building on prior experience modelling pressure-dependent, low-dependent and acceleration-dependent burning in solid rocket motors, an internal ballistic simulation computer program is modified for the present study where the use of the pintle nozzle and spin-augmented solid rocket motor combustion approaches, for a reference cylindrical-grain motor, are compared. This study confirms that comparable thrust augmentation can be gained at lower chamber pressures using the novel spin-acceleration approach, relative to the established pintle-nozzle approach, thus potentially providing a significant design advantage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".