Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “LIQUID INJECTION”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1975

Thrust vector control by liquid injection for solid propellant rockets

In liquid injection thrust vector control, a rocket jet is deflected for steering purposed by injecting a liquid into the nozzle exit cone. The liquid is preferably both dense and reactive so that it adds mass and energy and generates shocks in the supersonic exhaust. This behavior increases thrust in the affected part of the jet producing not only a side force for steering but an addition to axial thrust. This paper presents a summary of current liquid injection thrust vector control technology, including procedures for design, development, analysis, testing and evaluation, together with supporting data and references.

Zeamer, R. J.↗
NASA NTRS1973

On the Design and Test of a Liquid Injection Electric Thruster

A liquid injection electric thruster (LINJET) was designed and tested. The results of the tests were very encouraging with thruster performance levels well in excess of design goals. Supporting activities to the engine design and test included a five-million pulse life test on the main capacitor, a 46-million pulse test on the trigger electronics, design and fabrication of a zero resistance torque connector for use with the torsional pendulum thrust stand, design and fabrication of a logic box for control of engine firing, and a physical and chemical properties characterization of the perfluorocarbon propellant. While the results were encouraging, testing was limited, as many problems existed with the design. The most significant problem was involved with excessive propellant flow which contributed to false triggering and shorting. Low power active thermal control of the propellant storage cavity, coupled with a re-evaluation of the injection ring pore size and area exposed to the main capacitor discharge are areas that should be investigated should this design be carried forward.

Jones, T. A.↗
NASA NTRS1972

Multiple-orifice liquid injection into hypersonic airstreams and applications to ram C-3 flight

Experimental data are presented for the oblique injection of water and three electrophilic liquids (fluorocarbon compounds) through multiple-orifice nozzles from a flat plate and the sides of a hemisphere-cone (0.375 scale of RAM C spacecraft) into hypersonic airstreams. The nozzle patterns included single and multiple orifices, single rows of nozzles, and duplicates of the RAM C-III nozzles. The flat-plate tests were made at Mach 8. Total pressure was varied from 3.45 MN/m2 to 10.34 MN/m2, Reynolds number was varied form 9,840,000 per meter to 19,700,000 per meter, and liquid injection pressure was varied from 0.69 MN/m2 to 3.5 MN/m2. The hemisphere-cone tests were made at Mach 7.3. Total pressure was varied from 1.38 MN/m2, to 6.89 MN/m2, Reynolds number was varied from 3,540,000 per meter to 17,700,000 per meter, and liquid-injection pressure was varied from 0.34 MN/m2 to 4.14 MN/m2. Photographs of the tests and plots of liquid-penetration and spray cross-section area are presented. Maximum penetration was found to vary as the square root of the dynamic-pressure ratio and the square root of the total injection nozzle area. Spray cross-section area was linear with maximum penetration. The test results are used to compute injection parameters for the RAM C-3 flight injection experiment.

Weaver, W. L.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Simulation of Liquid Injection Thrust Vector Control for Mars Ascent Vehicle

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is currently in the initial design phase for a potential Mars Ascent Vehicle; which will be landed on Mars, stay on the surface for period of time, collect samples from the Mars 2020 rover, and then lift these samples into orbit around Mars. The engineers at JPL have down selected to a hybrid wax-based fuel rocket using a liquid oxidizer based on nitrogen tetroxide, or a Mixed Oxide of Nitrogen. To lower the gross lift-off mass of the vehicle the thrust vector control system will use liquid injection of the oxidizer to deflect the thrust of the main nozzle instead of using a gimbaled nozzle. The disadvantage of going with the liquid injection system is the low technology readiness level with a hybrid rocket. Presented in this paper is an effort to simulate the Mars Ascent Vehicle hybrid rocket nozzle and liquid injection thrust vector control system using the computational fluid dynamic flow solver Loci/Chem. This effort also includes determining the sensitivity of the thrust vector control system to a number of different design variables for the injection ports; including axial location, number of adjacent ports, injection angle, and distance between the ports.

Gudenkauf, Jared↗
NASA NTRS1988

Portable Liquid-Injecting System

Portable injecting-gun system dispenses predetermined amount of liquid at moderately high pressure. Tool belt holds components of liquid-injecting system. Pump and four-way valve combined in nylon housing. Connected to injecting nozzle and other components by polyvinyl tubing.

Shuck, T.↗
NASA NTRS1972

Multiple-orifice liquid injection into hypersonic air streams.

Review of oblique water and fluorocarbon injection test results obtained in experimental studies of the effects of multiple-orifice liquid injection into hypersonic air streams. The results include the finding that maximum lateral penetration from such injections increases linearly with the square root of the jet-to-freestream dynamic-pressure ratio and is proportional to an equivalent orifice diameter.

Weaver, W. L.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Hydrogen no-vent fill testing in a 5 cubic foot (142 liter) tank using spray nozzle and spray bar liquid injection

A total of 38 hydrogen no-vent fill tests were performed in this test series using various size spray nozzles and a spray bar with different hole sizes in a 5 cubic foot receiver tank. Fill levels of 90 percent by volume or greater were achieved in 26 of the tests while maintaining a receiver tank pressure below 30 psia. Spray nozzles were mounted at the top of the tank, whereas, the spray bar was centered in the tank axially. The spray nozzle no-vent fills demonstrated tank pressure and temperature responses comparable to previous test series. Receiver tank pressure responses for the spray bar configuration were similar to the spray nozzle tests with the pressure initially rising rapidly, then leveling off as vapor condenses onto the discharging liquid streams, and finally ramping up near the end of the test due to ullage compression. Both liquid injection techniques tested were capable of filling the receiver tank to 90 percent under variable test conditions. Comparisons between the spray nozzle and spray bar configurations for well matched test conditions indicate the spray nozzle injection technique is more effective in minimizing the receiving tank pressure throughout a no-vent fill compared to the spray bar under normal gravity conditions.

Moran, Matthew E.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Hydrogen no-vent testing in a 5 cubic foot (142 liter) tank using spray nozzle and spray bar liquid injection

A total of 38 hydrogen no-vent fill tests were performed in this test series using various size spray nozzles and a spray bar with different hole sizes in a 5 cubic foot receiver tank. Fill levels of 90 percent by volume or greater were achieved in 26 of the tests while maintaining a receiver tank pressure below 30 psia. Spray nozzles were mounted at the top of the tank, whereas, the spray bar was centered in the tank axially. The spray nozzle no-vent fills demonstrated tank pressure and temperature responses comparable to previous test series. Receiver tank pressure responses for the spray bar configuration were similar to the spray nozzle tests with the pressure initially rising rapidly, then leveling off as vapor condenses onto the discharging liquid streams, and finally ramping up near the end of the test due to ullage compression. Both liquid injection techniques tested were capable of filling the receiver tank to 90 percent under variable test conditions. Comparisons between the spray nozzle and spray bar configurations for well matched test conditions indicate the spray nozzle injection technique is more effective in minimizing the receiving tank pressure throughout a no-vent fill compared to the spray bar under normal gravity conditions.

Moran, Matthew E.↗
NASA NTRS1973

On the design and test of a liquid injection electric thruster

The design of the thruster described incorporates a coaxial four-segment trigger assembly to discharge a high-energy capacitor. The discharge ablates a waxy perfluorocarbon from the surface of porous annular metal ring, and the resulting plasma is electromagnetically accelerated to ambient producing thrust. Tests revealed a thruster performance well in excess of the major design goals.

Youmans, E. H.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Preliminary Investigation of Stagnation Point Liquid Injection Influence on Blunt Body Aerodynamics

A preliminary investigation has been performed to determine the influence of stagnation point water injection on the hypersonic aerodynamic forces and moments for two-dimensional blunt bodies. This investigation was performed in the Langley 20-Inch Mach 6 Air Tunnel, and represents the qualitative first phase of a study to examine the potential benefits of water injection to reduce aerodynamic drag and aero-heating. Tests with a 4-inch diameter hemisphere cylinder and a 4-inch diameter cylinder with a span 1.5 times the diameter were performed over a range of free-stream unit Reynolds number from two million to six million per ft and of angle of attack (-5 deg to 5 deg) with water and gaseous nitrogen injection at the geometric stagnation point. The momentum flux ratio, that is, the ratio of the momentum flux of the jet to that of the free-stream flow, was varied from the non-blowing value of zero up to 0.00031 by maintaining the jet momentum fixed and varying the free-stream momentum, hence Reynolds number. The effect of water injection on the aerodynamic drag coefficient for the hemisphere cylinder was observed to be negligible as the momentum flux ratio was increased to 0.00017, but decreased significantly as this ratio increased above 0.00017; a nearly 50 percent reduction in drag occurred for a factor of two increase in momentum flux ratio.

Woods, William C.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

Cameron J. Hines↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗