Figure 3 - uploaded by Livia Ordonez Valles
Content may be subject to copyright.
Context in source publication
Similar publications
![Fig. 4. Heat exchange-nozzle cross section [ 28 ] .](profile/Aswin-M-R/publication/377794784/figure/fig4/AS:11431281277504257@1726101386067/Heat-exchange-nozzle-cross-section-28_Q320.jpg)
![Fig. 5. MEMS based 3-Watt CMOS resistojet [30] .](profile/Aswin-M-R/publication/377794784/figure/fig5/AS:11431281277512956@1726101386661/MEMS-based-3-Watt-CMOS-resistojet-30_Q320.jpg)
Citations
... In the framework of the FLPP programme at the Space Transportation Directorate of ESA, which aims at fostering the implementation of novel technologies, the use of green storable propellants was preferred to more traditional ones. More specifically, the identification of a suitable HTP/Hydrocarbon combination was favoured [14]. ...
... At this stage of the study, the computations reported below are based on relevant hypothesis in order to draw preliminary estimations. The results shown are therefore only indicative and likely to be updated in later phases of the study [14]. ...
... The following sections report the steps of the propellant selection for LunaNova. The trade-off regarding the concentration of the selected oxidizer, Hydrogen Peroxide, is described in [14] and is only outlined here for consistency together with the method used. The same cost-oriented approach has been applied for the fuel selection and is explained below. ...
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 kick stage, confers strategic advantages to the launcher in expanding its missions' range. While many kick stages are currently developed, or already in use worldwide, this paper pays a particular attention to the new ASTRIS kick stage developed and optimized for A6 and its next kick stage generation already under conceptual study, LunaNova, at ArianeGroup Bremen for A6 Evolution. The project takes place under the ESA Future Launchers Preparatory Programme (FLPP) and is already implementing new technologies, namely innovative pressurization system and green propellants which are of special interest here. The paper starts by introducing the kick stage capabilities, especially the LunaNova ones, to then focus on the cost-oriented trade-off performed to select the fuel to use in combination with 98%-HTP to power the LunaNova vehicle. The paper then concludes by discussing the system impacts of implementing green propellants within the operational kick stage life cycle and its possible enhancement (namely the implementation of an e-pump).
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 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.
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.
