Atomic hydrogen as a launch vehicle propellant

An analysis of several atomic hydrogen launch vehicles was conducted. A discussion of the facilities and the technologies that would be needed for these vehicles is also presented. The Gross Liftoff Weights (GLOW) for two systems were estimated; their specific impulses (I sub sp) were 750 and 1500 lb(sub f)/s/lb(sub m). The atomic hydrogen launch vehicles were also compared to the currently planned Advanced Launch System design concepts. Very significant GLOW reductions of 52 to 58 percent are possible over the Advanced Launch System designs. Applying atomic hydrogen propellants to upper stages was also considered. Very high I(sub sp) (greater than 750 lb(sub f)/s/lb(sub m)) is needed to enable a mass savings over advanced oxygen/hydrogen propulsion. Associated with the potential benefits of high I(sub sp) atomic hydrogen are several challenging problems. Very high magnetic fields are required to maintain the atomic hydrogen in a solid hydrogen matrix. The magnetic field strength was estimated to be 30 kilogauss (3 Tesla). Also the storage temperature of the propellant is 4 K. This very low temperature will require a large refrigeration facility for the launch vehicle. The design considerations for a very high recombination rate for the propellant are also discussed. A recombination rate of 210 cm/s is predicted for atomic hydrogen. This high recombination rate can produce very high acceleration for the launch vehicle. Unique insulation or segmentation to inhibit the propellant may be needed to reduce its recombination rate

Booster propulsion/vehicle impact study, 2

This is the final report in a study examining the impact of launch vehicles for various boost propulsion design options. These options included: differing boost phase engines using different combinations of fuels and coolants to include RP-1, methane, propane (subcooled and normal boiling point), and hydrogen; variable and high mixture ratio hydrogen engines; translating nozzles on boost phase engines; and cross feeding propellants from the booster to second stage. Vehicles examined included a fully reusable two stage cargo vehicle and a single stage to orbit vehicle. The use of subcooled propane as a fuel generated vehicles with the lowest total vehicle dry mass. Engines with hydrogen cooling generated only slight mass reductions from the reference, all-hydrogen vehicle. Cross feeding propellants generated the most significant mass reductions from the reference two stage vehicle. The use of high mixture ratio or variable mixture ratio hydrogen engines in the boost phase of flight resulted in vehicles with total dry mass 20 percent greater than the reference hydrogen vehicle. Translating nozzles for boost phase engines generated a heavier vehicle. Also examined were the design impacts on the vehicle and ground support subsystems when subcooled propane is used as a fuel. The most significant cost difference between facilities to handle normal boiling point versus subcooled propane is 5 million dollars. Vehicle cost differences were negligible. A significant technical challenge exists for properly conditioning the vehicle propellant on the ground and in flight when subcooled propane is used as fuel