MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407412552 · doi:10.2514/6.2025-2470

Novel Use of Non-Combustible Propellant Analogs for Rapid, Safe, and Low-Cost Cryogenic Bipropellant Rocket Engine Testing

2025· article· en· W4407412552 on OpenAlexaff
Oleg Khalimonov, Hoi Dick Ng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRocket and propulsion systems research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropellantRocket (weapon)Rocket propellantRocket engineLiquid-propellant rocketAutomotive engineeringAerospace engineeringWaste managementMaterials scienceAeronauticsNuclear engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the novel use of safe, non-combustible propellant analogs for preliminary tests before hot-fire rocket engine testing. Originally developed by the Space Concordia team during the testing of their 35kN keralox bipropellant fuel rocket engine “Stewart,” this method addresses issues of cost, logistics, and safety in rocket engine testing. For full-scale rocket engines, safety clear zones, noise restrictions, and handling of propellants like kerosene and liquid oxygen pose significant hurdles for low-budget organizations in urban areas. This method utilizes liquid nitrogen as an analog for liquid oxygen and water or other high heat capacity room-temperature liquids as fuel analogs. These "cryo-flow" tests, common in the industry, obtain key parameters without combustion risks. However, these trials struggle with accurately determining feed system performance and potential cavitation due to low system pressure and lack of combustion backpressure. A new variation of this test resolves the aforementionedproblem. By adjusting the throat diameter of the engine, the rapid expansion of the inert cryogen in the combustion chamber post-injection achieves gas velocities of Mach 1 at the throat and can be tuned to match the design chamber pressure of combustion. This innovation allows the full engine system to be safely validated at hot-fire run pressures prior to hot-fire testing, reducing both cost and risk. This paper summarizes the concept of operations, the engine design that was validated with this method, the mobile rocket engine test stand, as well as backpressure cryo data compared to hot-fire data. This comprehensive review provides insights into the practicality and effectiveness of using noncombustible propellant analogs, presenting a significant advancement for resource-limited organizations, as well as cost and time savings for large institutions engaged in rocket engine development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRocket and propulsion systems researchFrench-language works237,207