Skip to main content

Different rocket engine types, which one is the best?


There are many different types of rocket engines, usually referred to as rocket engine cycles. We will be discussing 3 main cycles in this blog post. Open Cycle/Gas Generator, Closed Cycle/Staged Combustion Cycle, Expander cycle, and pressure-fed cycle.

Open Cycle/Gas Generator Cycle:

The open cycle class rocket engines are engines that take a tiny bit of fuel and a tiny bit of oxidizer, and turn it into a gas by burning it, to spin the turbopumps. That small amount of fuel and oxidizer is being burned in the gas generator chamber. The turbopumps are the super fast spinning pumps that convert low pressure fuel to high pressure, shooting them into the combustion chamber. The exhaust from gas generator chamber is then dumped overboard from a pipe. This leads to a waste of efficiency and slightly less thrust.

Closed Cycle/Staged Combustion Cycle:

The closed cycle class rocket engines are nearly the same as open cycle, except instead of dumping the gas generator exhaust overboard on another pipe, it is then re-routed back into the main fuel/oxidizer combustion chamber, giving it the name, closed cycle, because you close the cycle. This is why the gas generator is renamed to a preburner, as it preburns the fuel and doesn't dump any generated exhaust gases overboard. This gives you more efficiency and potentially slightly more thrust if made correctly. Examples of Closed Cycle/Staged Combustion Cycle engines are, the Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25 Engine, the Blue Origin BE-4 Engine, and the SpaceX Raptor Engine. Although Closed Cycle is good and more efficient than open cycle, it is often way more expensive and complicated.

Expander Cycle:

The expander cycle is similar to both open cycle and closed cycle. Usually, the expander cycle is more like the closed cycle engines, as all the fuel ends up flowing through the main combustion chamber. What this cycle does is, it cools the nozzle by flowing cryogenic fluids like Liquid Oxygen, Liquid Hydrogen, or Liquid Methane through the nozzle and chamber walls, and then since that extremely cold liquid heats up in the nozzle walls from the extremely hot combustion happening inside the nozzle, the cryogenic liquid in the nozzle wall heats up and expands into a gas. The gas is then re-routed to spin the main turbopumps, and then that gas is the re-routed into the main combustion chamber, as it would be pointless and potentially dangerous to dump it overboard. It also wouldn't really be possible to "dump" a gas overboard.

Pressure-fed cycle:

The pressure fed rocket engine cycle is usually the least powerful. There is no gas generator exhaust pipe to dump the gas generator exhaust overboard, and no gas generator/preburner exhaust is re-routed into the main combustion chamber, because there is no gas generator or preburner, as this cycle does not have any turbopumps/pumps at all. This cycle literally uses pressure in the fuel and oxidizer tank to push the fuel and oxidizer into the fuel injector to then be sprayed into the main combustion chamber. A major disadvantage in this cycle is, the tank pressure always needs to be higher than the chamber pressure where fuel and oxidizer is constantly combusting creating a crazy amount of pressure, and usually rocket engine tanks are not at a crazy high pressure, as the turbopumps make up for it by converting the fuel and oxidizer from low pressure to high pressure. You also have less throttle control, as all you have to control throttle is the valves, to partially open and close them, while you can control turbopumps more by simply adjusting the speed of the turbopump.


Out of all 4 of these cycles, the most efficient is between the expander cycle and closed cycle. Closed Cycle is most likely the better option for thrust and efficiency, but those 2 cycles are most likely the best options, unless you are on a budget. Most amateur aerospace engineers and rocket scientists use the pressure fed cycle, as it is simple, cheap, and the parts are usually globally accessible.

Popular posts from this blog

Starship SN10 Aborts at T - 0 Seconds for its 10km test flight.

  Moments ago, Starship SN10 attempted a flight to 10km, to then orient itself into a unique horizontal bellyflop position, flip itself upright after it has descended to about 1km, deploy the landing legs, and touch down on the landing pad softly. This vehicle, Starship Number 10, uses Liquid CH4 (methane) and Liquid Oxygen aka LOX/LO2, used by its 3 powerful Raptor engines.  Today, SpaceX started their official stream for the Starship SN10 Flight. SpaceX have privated the stream replay, so we cannot replay it. In case you want the link: The vehicle began fueling up with Methane and LOX, and then shortly after, it started the engine chill process, which is the process of chilling the engines down in preparation for engine ignition, so the engine material does not crack or get damaged from sudden shock. The vehicle attempted to start up its 3 Raptor engines, by opening the fuel & oxidizer valves, starting up the turbopumps, sho

What is “the best” programming language?

Programming languages, there are so many of them. Some programming languages are way easier to learn than other ones. But which programming language, is “the best” programming language? This question, it is not really answerable. There is no “best programming languages”, they are all meant for different things, well, MOST of them. If I were to compare 2 different programming languages, meant for very similar things, like Batch and Bash, I would say Batch is easier, as its Syntax is not as confusing as Bash’s to the average person. Here is another example, C# is primarily used for computer applications, mostly on Windows, and HTML is a markup language, being used to make websites. I cannot compare C# (it is pronounced “See Sharp” if you didn’t know) because they are used for completely different things. It wouldn’t make sense to say, “C# is way better”, because what is it better at? Developing desktop applications? Sure! Then I can say HTML is better at making websites, it is not a logi

How do you know the universe was not created a few minutes ago?

       The universe is the giant area of space that we live in, which is observable. Anything past our universal border is not in our universe. People do say the universe is constantly expanding, but there is no proof of that, as the "imaginary" or, maybe not imaginary border at the "end" of our universe. But, how do you know that the universe even exists? Were you even in it last week? Did last week even exist? Last week, the universe could have been created, and you do not have proof against it. All of your knowledge and memory could have easily popped into existence a few seconds ago, tricking you into thinking you have existed for longer than you think. This is likely, but also unlikely, it is a 50/50 chance. A reason that this is unlikely is, there are a lot of things that do not make sense in our universe. Like, why does matter attract matter, resulting in gravity? This exists in our universe, but can it exist in a different universe? Not really, or most likel