Figure - uploaded by Martin Tajmar
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
![Fuels vapor pressures at 25°C [22]](profile/Martin-Tajmar/publication/364118100/figure/tbl2/AS:11431281091676583@1666602031706/Fuels-vapor-pressures-at-25C-22_Q320.jpg)
The fast-paced growth of the space sector brings in new challenges especially with upcoming complex missions combining multi-orbit deliveries and/or on-orbit servicing such as Active Debris Removal (ADR). Europe has taken up the challenges and is working on extending its launchers portfolio and capabilities. In this framework, a new add-on, the kic...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... advantage of Kerosene is that the curve shows a plateau around the equilibrium which allows better flexibility to fine-tune the MR as the propellant is consumed to keep the stage's centre of gravity stable. Table 3 reports the respective densities of the oxidiser, 98%-HTP, and of the hydrocarbon's fuels together with their mixture ratio. The optimum Oxidizer-to-Fuel Ratios (MR) reported in Table 3, and extracted from the Rocket Propulsion Analysis tool (RPA) [23], show the proportion of fuel and oxidizer that maximizes the specific impulse at given operational parameters. ...Context 2
... 3 reports the respective densities of the oxidiser, 98%-HTP, and of the hydrocarbon's fuels together with their mixture ratio. The optimum Oxidizer-to-Fuel Ratios (MR) reported in Table 3, and extracted from the Rocket Propulsion Analysis tool (RPA) [23], show the proportion of fuel and oxidizer that maximizes the specific impulse at given operational parameters. The higher value for Kerosene indicates how its combustion requires a higher proportion of HTP to generate the same thrust level with respect to the other two hydrocarbons considered. ...Citations
... These orbital stages enhance Ariane 6's capabilities, enabling complex orbital transfers, and reducing the propulsion system burden on satellite manufacturers, which facilitates launching satellite constellations, and supports deep space and lunar missions. Their modular architectures can be tailored for specific mission requirements, positioning Europe strategically in the global space market [18][19][20]. Building on this concept, this study highlights the synergistic benefits of pairing orbital stages with greener propulsion technologies, which not only minimize environmental impact but could also enhance performance. ...
... The starting point of the study was a propulsion trade-off study aiming at evaluating the cost impact of transitioning from the legacy MON-3/MMH to a greener 98%-HTP/Kerosene for classic kick stage missions. The study detailed the system mass breakdown as follows [19]: ...
... Loss in payload mass capacity, m payload , for LunaNova missions due to replacing conventional propellants (MON3/MMH) by greener ones (98%-HTP/RP-1)[19]. ...
This paper presents a comprehensive framework for designing in-space propulsion systems, integrating four criteria: global propulsive performance, environmental impact, cost efficiency, and architectural reliability. The study focuses on the emerging class of Orbital Transfer Vehicles to illustrate the application of this method. By examining the synergistic potential of OTVs and greener propellants, the paper addresses different mission scenarios, including LEO, GEO, and lunar missions, with both scientific and commercial objectives. The proposed framework aims to go beyond traditional cost-centric approaches, offering a more complete evaluation method for early design phases. A case study comparing three liquid bipropellant options, pressure-fed MON-3/MMH, 98%-HTP/RP-1, and self-pressurizing N2O/Ethane, demonstrates the utility of the tool. Findings suggest that scientific missions benefit most from 98%-HTP/RP-1, while traditional propellants remain preferable for cost-driven commercial missions to GEO and the MOON, though greener alternatives are competitive for less demanding LEO missions. This innovative framework aims to guide the selection of propulsion systems to achieve greener space missions, aligning traditional performance figures with environmental responsibility.
... • The traditional MON3/MMH system, propellant used in the Ariane 6 Kick Stage ASTRIS [1,2]. • A "Greener Hypergolic" option using 98%-HTP with Ethanol or RP-1, adopted in various recent systems [1]. ...
... • The traditional MON3/MMH system, propellant used in the Ariane 6 Kick Stage ASTRIS [1,2]. • A "Greener Hypergolic" option using 98%-HTP with Ethanol or RP-1, adopted in various recent systems [1]. • A "Self-Pressurizing" system combining Nitrous Oxide with Ethane or similar light hydrocarbons with high vapor-pressure [3]. ...
... Scenario This study takes an Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV) as its reference system [1,14], designed to answer the growing demands of delivering multiple payloads across various Earth orbits. Being at the forefront of space logistics and innovation, OTVs serve as an ideal platform for evaluating different propellant technologies. ...
As space activities continue to expand, with increasing numbers of launches and payloads, it becomes crucial to evaluate the environmental consequences of these developments. In this perspective, this study investigates the ground-phase environmental footprint of future in-space liquid bipropellant systems, focusing on MON3/MMH, 98%-HTP/RP-1, 98%-HTP/Ethanol, and N2O/Ethane. A lifecycle analysis from propellant production to the integration of the propulsion system into the launcher for a typical mission scenario identifies key environmental impact hotspots.
The findings reveal that the production phase of MMH stands out as particularly detrimental, primarily due to its energy-demanding distillation process and its specialized, low-volume production tailored for space applications. The MON3/MMH system continues to show the highest contribution when considering the entire phases up to propellant loading due to stringent fuelling and decontamination processes.
In terms of propulsive architecture, tank production, whether using titanium or aluminium, stands out as the primary environmental hotspot for dry architectures, with titanium proving more environmentally disruptive. In contrast, for wet architectures, the production of dry components constitutes most of the environmental impact, accounting for 95% of the total for HTP combinations and 64% for both MON3/MMH and self-pressurizing options.
... This spacecraft variant operates as an integrated service module, simplifying the entire process of space access. At its core, the KS is dedicated to precisely delivering payloads to their intended orbits, streamlining complex mission logistics [1,2]. Its potential is particularly evident in constellation deployment, allowing for the simultaneous placement of multiple payloads into diverse orbits with a single launch. ...
... Kick stages, extending beyond their primary role of delivering payloads to orbit, introduce a transformative era in space logistics. These stages offer a diverse array of innovative services that could redefine the approach to space missions [1]. One notable capability is in-orbit refueling, presenting the potential to extend mission lifetimes by replenishing propellants. ...
... A more detailed, second-order computation, incorporating costs related to payload ratio margins among different options, is yet to be implemented. This part will have a significant effect, as was shown in the ArianeGroup LunaNova study [1]. The results presented in this section are therefore initial estimates based on the respective derived masses of components within the different architectures. ...
Aligning with the current shift towards greener energy, many space companies are already replacing toxic rocket fuels with greener ones. However, this often implies taking risk in a domain that is rather risk adverse. To help into taking this leap, the tool presented here gives a quick analysis of the different propulsion options able to fulfil certain types of in-space missions. Kick stages are taken as reference system for their prospects in facilitating mission logistics and their abilities to fulfill a wide range of missions. Taking as inputs mission scenarios parameters, the tool evaluates the propulsive options with respect to four figures of merit: propulsive performance, environmental performance, reliability and cost effectiveness. To illustrate the functioning of the tool, five propulsive options with different propellant combinations and feeding architectures are evaluated over three mission scenarios to LEO, GEO and MOON orbits. A final trade-off and system selection reveals that the most suitable propulsion choices vary depending on whether the mission is meant for scientific or commercial purposes.
The aim of the following report is to present a different set of solutions for a bi-propellant
propulsion system of a 250 kg dry mass spacecraft’s kick-stage engine capable of performing
a velocity variation of 2500 m/s.
This analysis has been carried out considering two different propulsion couples. The first
propulsion couple taken into account has been a toxic solution represented by hydrazine
(N2H4) as fuel and nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) as oxidizer. The second solution considered
has been the green one based on kerosene (RP-1) as fuel and highly pure hydrogen peroxide
(H2O2) with 98% concentration as oxidizer.
Afterwards, an upscaling and downscaling study, for both the green and the toxic solution
of the motor, has been performed, by doubling and halving the nominal thrust, but keeping
the performance parameters constant .
In the end, a discussion on the productive solution has been performed by analyzing the
additive manufacturing possibility of realizing the kick stages obtained, considering also the
adaptability of the selected material to this innovative process.
