high performance green propulsion (hpgp)

| Copyright © 2013 ECAPS

HIGH PERFORMANCE

GREEN PROPULSION (HPGP)

ON-ORBIT VALIDATION &

ONGOING DEVELOPMENT

Aaron Dinardi

March 2013

Copyright © 2013 ECAPS


1. Overview of HPGP Technology

2. PRISMA Update

3. Benefits to Satellite Missions

4. Cooperative Partnerships

Outline


• IMPROVED PERFORMANCE

- Storable liquid monopropellant

- Higher Specific Impulse and Density Impulse

Why Green Propulsion?

+

• INCREASED SAFETY

- Low Sensitivity

- Low Toxicity

- Non-Carcinogenic

- Environmentally Benign

=

• LOWER MISSION COSTS

- Simplified handling and transportation

- Reduced cost for fueling operations

- Compatible with available COTS hardware

Higher performance than

monopropellant Hydrazine

Extended mission or

reduced tank volume

Much less toxic than Hydrazine

Reduced fueling cost


Ammonium DiNitrimide (ADN)

in liquid monopropellants

Solvent

Water

Fuel

Alcohols,

acetone,

ammonia

The family of ADN propellants was

invented in 1997 by the Swedish Space

Corporation (SSC) and the Swedish

Defence Research Agency (FOI).

ADN Energetic Material

Highly Soluble

Oxidizer

LMP-103S

monopropellant:

ADN 60-65 %

Methanol 15-20 %

Ammonia 3-6 %

Water balance

(by weight)

HPGP

High Performance

Green Propellant


NH4+

N(NO2)2-

ADN + Solvent + Fuel + Stabilizer

H2O CH3OHNH3

Exhaust species

H2OCO2

Higher performance:

- Isp ≥ 6%

- Density Impulse ≥ 30%

Reduced personal and

environmental hazards:

- Low sensitivity

- Low toxicity

- Non carcinogenic

Simpler to handle and

transport:

- SCAPE not required

- Approved for air

transport

(50%) (23%) (16%) (6%) (5%)

Formulating a Green Propellant LMP-103S Storable Monopropellant

All constituents are registered in REACH


LMP-103S Testing

Class 1: Long term

Class 2: Short term

Class 3: Incompatible

Material Compatibility

class

Metals

Titanium 1

Titanium G5 1

SS 2343 (SS 316L) 1

SS 304L 1

CRES430 1

SS 15.5 1

Gold 1

Silver 3

Copper 3

Aluminum 3

Elastomers

EPDM 1

PTFE 1

Kalrez 1

Polyethylene 2

Viton 2

Nitrile 3

Typical propulsion system materials

Temperature Range

• Short-term (hrs) stability: ≤ 120 °C

• Long-term stability: ≤ 50 °C

• Condensation of ADN: ~ -7 °C

• Freezing Temperature: ~ -90 °C

Safety Tests

• Impact

• Sensitivity

• Ignition

• Detonation tests

• UN-Transport Classification


HPGP Characteristics (as compared to hydrazine)

Comparison Parameter Hydrazine HPGP (LMP-103S)

Specific Impulse Reference ≥ 6% higher than hydrazine

Density Reference 24% higher than hydrazine

Stability Unstable (reactivity) Stable > 20 yrs (STANAG 4582)

Toxicity Highly Toxic Low Toxicity (due to methanol)

Carcinogenic Yes No

Corrosive Yes No

Flammable Vapors Yes No

Environmental Hazard Yes No

Sensitive to Air & Humidity Yes No

SCAPE Required for Handling Yes No

Storable Yes Yes (> 6.5 yrs, end-to-end test is ongoing)

Freezing Point 1°C -90°C (-7°C saturation)

Boiling Point 114°C 120°C

Qualified Operating Temp Range 10°C to 50°C 10°C to 50°C

(allows use of COTS hydrazine components)

Operating Temp Range

Capability

10°C to 50°C -5°C to 60°C

Typical Blow-Down Ratio 4:1 4:1

Exhaust Gases Ammonia, nitrogen, hydrogen H20 (50%), N2 (23%), H2 (16%), CO (6%), CO2 (5%)

Radiation Tolerance Reference Insensitive up to 100 kRad (Cobalt 60)

Shipping Class 8 / UN2029

(Forbidden on commercial aircraft)

UN / DOT 1.4S

(Permitted on commercial passenger aircraft)


Air Transport of LMP-103S Transport Classified as UN / US DOT 1.4S

1. 21 Aug 2009: Stockholm Kiruna (via commercial passenger aircraft)

2. 17 May 2010: Örebro Orsk (via cargo aircraft with the PRISMA satellites)

3. 11 Aug 2011: Stockholm Zurich London (via commercial passenger aircraft)

4. 6 Jun 2012: Göteborg Stockholm New York (via commercial passenger aircraft)

5. 22 Dec 2012: Stockholm Tokyo (via commercial passenger aircraft)

5.


LMP-103S has a combustion temperature of 1600 oC

• High temperature resistant catalyst

• High temperature resistant thrust chamber

HPGP Thruster Design


* Delivered steady-state vacuum specific impulse at MEOP and ε = 150:1

** Predicted steady-state vacuum specific impulse at MEOP and ε = 150:1

1 N 5 N 22 N 50 N 220 N

ECAPS High Performance Green Propulsion

1 N 5 N 22 N 50 N 220 N

ECAPS High Performance Green Propulsion

Thrust 0.5 N 1 N 5 N 22 N 50 N 220 N

Propellant LMP-103S LMP-103S LMP-103S LMP-103S LMP-103S LMP-103

Isp (Ns/kg) 2210*

(~ 225 sec)

2310*

(~ 235 sec)

2450*

(~ 250 sec)

2500*

(~ 255 sec)

2515**

(~ 256 sec)

2800**

(~ 285 sec)

Density

Impulse (Ns/L)

2730

2860

2900

3030

3120

3580

Status TRL 5 TRL 9

flight proven

TRL 5 TRL 5 TRL 3 TRL 3

200N (not shown)

2300*

(> 235 sec)

2850

TRL 5

LMP-103S


1N HPGP Thruster (RCS + ΔV) TRL 9

Demonstrated Firings

Operational Modes • Quasi Steady-State (Continuous firing)

• Pulse Mode (Duty factors between

0.15% to 50 %)

• Off-Modulation (Duty factors between

50% to 99 %)

• Single Pulse (Single pulses or low duty

factors)

PRISMA Operational Restrictions:

A. Minimum I-Bit due to the Thruster Driver

Electronics (RTU)

B. Maximum Command Rate (1Hz)

C. Momentum Management due to

Reaction Wheels Saturation (> 30 Ns)

D. Duty cycles above this line represent

pulse trains; below are effectively single

pulses (due to the Toff between pulses

allowing the thruster temperature to fall

back to pre-firing conditions)

On Ground and In-Space Fired Sequences

Duty Factor vs Ton


200N HPGP Thruster (LV RCS) TRL 5

Maturation Study for Ariane 5 ME

ECAPS HPGP 200N RCS

Inlet Pressure Range (valve dependent)

5 – 26 bar

Thrust Range (vacuum) 50 – 220N

Nozzle Exp. 30:1

Steady State Isp (vacuum)

Typical ˃2300 Ns/kg (˃235 sec)

Density Impulse (vacuum) 2850 Ns/L

Minimum Impulse Bit ≤ 10 Ns @ 50 ms

Demonstrated Life (as of December 2012)

Pulses >1500

Propellant Throughput 24 kg

Longest Continuous Firing 20 s

Accumulated Firing Time 7.7 min

Firing Sequences (Thermal Cycles)

218

Successful test campaigns at

ECAPS and Astrium:

• Performance could be

reproduced in different test

stands

• The thruster is capable of

operating at duty cycles

required for the Ariane 5 Mid-life

Evolution (ME) mission

This proves that the further

development of a 200N class

HPGP thruster for the A5ME

HGRS should be feasible

with reasonable risk and cost.


220N Advanced Concept Engine TRL 3

Goals for the Advanced Concept Engine (ACE):

- Thrust level ≥ 220 N (50 lbf)

- Isp ≥ 2800 Ns/kg (285 sec)

- Attitude Control Capability

- Apogee Engine Capability Design Features:

- Modular Design

- Multi-fuel Capability

- Throttleable Applications:

- Launcher Attitude Control

- Liquid Apogee Engines Preparing 220N ACE for Hot Firing Test


The PRISMA Mission

Objective and Background: • Demonstration of technologies related to Formation Flying (FF)

and Rendezvous in space

− Main satellite “Mango” and Target satellite “Tango”

• Demonstration of High Performance Green Propulsion

(HPGP) system

HPGP Flight Objectives: • Demonstration of non-hazardous fueling operations and

reduced fueling lead time of a high performance monopropellant

• First in-space demonstration of a high performance storable

“green” monopropellant

• Deliver ΔV to the PRISMA mission

• Redundant propulsion system to hydrazine

• Perform Back-to-Back performance comparison with hydrazine

Status: • Launched clamped together on 15 Jun 2010

• Tango separated from Mango on 11 Aug 2010

• Nominal mission completed by mid-Aug 2011

• Mission extended into 2013 (still operational)

http://rymdstyrelsen.se/sv/


Tango

• 3-axis stabilized

• Solar Magnetic control

• No orbit control

• 40 kg launch mass

Mango

• 3-axis stabilized

• Attitude Independent Orbit

Control

• 100 m/s Delta-V

• 145 kg launch mass

• 2.6 m “wing-span”

• 3 propulsion systems

• 4 RF systems

(Artists Impression – Courtesy of DLR)

HPGP has been flight-proven to outperform

hydrazine on the PRISMA mission


HPGP propulsion system:

Two 1N thrusters

• Specific HPGP experiments

• Formation flying maneuvers

• Co-operations with hydrazine

PRISMA (Mango) Propulsion Systems

Hydrazine propulsion system:

Six 1N thrusters

• Autonomous formation flying

• Autonomous rendezvous

• Homing

• Proximity operations

LMP-103S

GHe

TS TS

Propellant Service

Valve Orifice

Filter Latch Valve

Thrusters

Pressurant Service

Valve

Pressure

Transducer

*Hydrazine based Commercial Off The Shelf components


HPGP In-Space Comparison with Hydrazine as seen during >2 years on PRISMA

Specific Impulse and Density Impulse Comparison

Steady-State Firing: Isp for last 10 s of

60 s firings

6-12 % Higher Isp than hydrazine

30-39 % Higher Density Impulse than hydrazine

Single Pulse Firing: Ton: 50 ms – 60 s

First half of the mission



Pulse Mode Firing: Ton: 50 ms – 30 s

Duty Factor: 0.1 – 97%



Mission Average improvement with HPGP as compared to hydrazine:

- Isp + 8%

- Density Impulse + 32%


Benefits to Satellite Missions:

1) Increased Performance 2) Simplified Handling & Transportation

4) Fewer Co-Manifest Challenges 3) Reduced Mission Costs

≥ 30% higher performance allows:

Longer mission lifetime (with same tank), or

Smaller tank (for same ∆V)

o Waterfall mass reductions

o Better utilization of limited volume & mass

Efficient orbit raising and/or de-orbit

Reduced propellant toxicity allows:

Handling in facilities not rated for hydrazine

o Launch sites

o Universities and SMEs

Air transport (commercial/passenger aircraft)

o Shipment to launch site with s/c & GSE

Fueling without SCAPE suits

Increased responsiveness

o Shorter launch campaigns

o Shipment of pre-fueled satellites

Significant life-cycle cost reductions, due to:

All of the blue highlighted items on this slide

Non-Hazardous fueling operations allow:

Reduced physical risk to other satellites

Parallel processing at launch site

o Reduced launch schedule risk

More launch opportunities


Benefit #1: Increased Performance

Longer Mission Lifetime Astrium Space Transportation has analyzed replacing hydrazine

with HPGP on their existing Myriade platform (100 - 200 kg),

and concluded that for the same tank size:

• Up to 28% higher total impulse is achievable, resulting in

• 24% more ∆V (blow-down dependent)

Myriade

LRO mass savings with HPGP

Smaller Propellant Tank NASA Goddard has analyzed the mass savings which would

have been achieved on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

(1,882 kg) if it had implemented HPGP instead of hydrazine,

and concluded that:

• A 39% smaller tank (volume) and 26% less propellant (mass)

could have been used, resulting in “waterfall” mass savings

of 18.7% of the entire spacecraft’s mass

Orbit Raising and/or De-orbit Co-manifested satellites are often injected into sub-optimal

orbits, resulting in: • Reduced mission lifetime (if injected too low), or

• If injected too high, and orbit decay timeframe exceeding the 25

year post-mission requirement

Including a COTS-based HPGP system can provide an effective way to

raise and/or lower the orbit perigee


Benefit #2: Simplified Handling & Transportation

Loading PRISMA with Hydrazine

Loading PRISMA with LMP-103S For the PRIMSA launch campaign:

• The LMP-103S propellant was transported as air cargo,

together with the satellites and associated GSE

o Hydrazine was shipped separately, by rail/boat/truck

Hydrazine HPGP

470 kg toxic waste 3 kg non-toxic waste

29 kg propellant waste 1 kg propellant waste

• HPGP fueling operations required only 3 working days (leak

checks, fueling & pressurization, decontamination)

• All HPGP handling (loading & decontamination) was

declared “non-hazardous operations” by Range Safety

o HPGP loading did not require SCAPE operations

o Only limited decontamination of the HPGP loading cart was

required at the launch site:

• The costs for propellant, transportation and fueling of

hydrazine were 3 times higher than those for HPGP


Benefit #3: Reduced Life-Cycle Costs

A “Non-Space”

Case Study

42% - 88% higher

up-front costs than

heritage technology

options are offset by

significant savings in

other areas

Source: Demonstration Assessment of Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Parking Lot Lighting,

Prepared for the US Dept. of Energy by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, May 2011


Conclusions:

1) Significant savings are achievable, even before all cost areas are accounted for.

2) Analyses must be performed on a mission-by-mission basis in order to determine if the

transportation & launch processing cost savings are able to offset the higher material costs.

(*Note: Positive values indicate HPGP cost savings over a hydrazine-based system) Consideration Factors:

Example HPGP vs. Hydrazine Cost Comparison


Analysis includes: flight hardware, propellant (excluding transport) and satellite fueling (excluding waste disposal)

Greater savings are able to be achieved from smaller tanks, propellant transportation and waste disposal

Mission #1:

1a 1b 1c

Mission #2:

2a 2b 2c

Missions #3&4:

3a 4a

Missions #3&4:

4b 3b

Example HPGP Cost Savings (vs. a comparable hydrazine system)


Additional Consideration: “Hidden” Hydrazine Costs

Hydrazine Disposal

Cost Analysis

Note: The cumulative “disposal charge”

translates to ~$29/pound of hydrazine.

However, when categories 5 & 6 are

combined, the cost can grow to more

than 3x that…


Cooperative Partnerships

ECAPS • Thruster & Catalyst

design and manufacturing

• Propulsion system design

• ADN purification

• LMP-103 production

• Propellant loading

• European Propulsion

System PRIME

• Thruster ground testing


• Systems Engineering

• US Thruster re-seller

• LMP-103S production in US

• Thruster ground testing in US


• Propellant tank manufacturing

• Systems Engineering


Cooperative Partnerships

ATK

Partner on the US market since 2008

• Propulsion System Design & Systems Engineering

• Thruster re-seller

• Propellant tank manufacturing

• LMP-103S production in US

• Thruster ground testing in US 5N HPGP thruster hot-firing with ATK-blended LMP-103S

Astrium Space Transportation

Partner on the European market since 2012

• Propulsion system PRIME (existing HPGP products)

• Technology development (h/w requirements & maturation) 200N HPGP thruster hot-firing in Lampoldshausen


Cooperative Partnerships (cont’d)

NASA

Goddard (GSFC)

• Ground testing of a 5N HPGP development thruster

• Planned qualification testing of HPGP flight thrusters

Marshall (MSFC)

• Ground testing of a 22N HPGP development thruster

Skybox Imaging

First commercial customer for HPGP technology

• Delivery of a complete HPGP propulsion system

• Qualification of design for use on an entire constellation Nearly twice the on-orbit ΔV of the traditional

monopropellant systems which were considered

Lowest projected life-cycle cost of all the liquid propulsion

technologies that were analyzed

ESA

1N HPGP thruster life test

• Extended throughput (50kg) hot-fire testing

200N maturation study

• Feasibility to replace the hydrazine Hot Gas Reaction

System (HGRS) with HPGP on the Ariane 5 ME


Cooperative Partnerships (cont’d)

CNES

Myriade Evolutions

• Feasibility to replace hydrazine with HPGP on the

existing and flight-proven Myriade platform

JAXA

Propellant safety testing

• LMP-103S shipped to Japan in Dec 2012


HPGP is a flight-proven, scalable green

technology, which provides: • Better performance than monopropellant hydrazine

Also a viable solution for some bi-prop missions

• A standard system architecture, to allow for a

simple transition from existing designs with COTS

components

Simply swap out the thrusters and propellant

HPGP provides cost savings over hydrazine • Material costs are offset by significant reductions in

transportation, launch processing, waste disposal

and elimination of ”hidden costs”

Due to the number of variables affecting each

program, a mission-specific analysis is needed to

identify the full extent of cost savings able to be

achieved

Summary Increased

Performance

Simplified Handling

& Transportation

Reduced

Mission Costs Fewer Co-Manifest

Challenges

Benefits to Satellite Missions:


PRISMA In-Space Performance Results

high performance green propulsion (hpgp)

Documents