I have to wonder if this is a good idea, what with so many other green ventures not living up to expectations, this might actually end up getting people killed if it isn’t fully tested before making it into the next manned spacecraft venture.
From the Air Force Office of Scientific Research
AFOSR-funded research key to revolutionary ‘green’ spacecraft propellant
In 2015, NASA, for the first time, will fly a space mission utilizing a radically different propellant — one which has reduced toxicity and is environmentally benign
In 2015, NASA, for the first time, will fly a space mission utilizing a radically different propellant—one which has reduced toxicity and is environmentally benign. This energetic ionic liquid, or EIL, is quite different from the historically employed hydrazine-based propellant, which was first used as a rocket fuel during World War II for the Messerschmitt Me 163B (the first rocket-powered fighter plane).
Within the U.S. space program, hydrazine was used on the 1970s Viking Mars program, and more recently in the Phoenix lander and Curiosity rover Mars missions, as well as in the Space Shuttle’s auxiliary power units. Significantly, monopropellant hydrazine-fueled rocket engines are the norm in controlling the terminal descent of spacecraft. What makes hydrazine desirable as a propellant for this terminal descent role is that when combined with various catalysts, the result is an extremely exothermic reaction that releases significant heat in a very short time, producing energy in the form of large volumes of hot gas from a relatively small volume of hydrazine liquid.
Unfortunately, hydrazine has several significant drawbacks: it is very toxic when inhaled, corrosive on contact with skin, hazardously flammable, and falls short in providing the propulsive power required for future spacecraft systems. In 1998, driven by these challenges, Dr. Michael Berman, a Program Manager at the Arlington, Virginia-based Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), the basic research arm of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), funded Dr. Tom Hawkins of the Propellants Branch, Rocket Propulsion Division at AFRL’s Aerospace Systems Directorate, to find a more benign, yet even more powerful material to replace hydrazine.
This research effort was ultimately associated with a joint government and industry development program, the Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT) initiative, to improve U.S. rocket propulsion systems. IHPRPT challenged the Department of Defense, the National Air and Space Administration, and the rocket propulsion industry to double U.S. rocket propulsion capability (cost and performance) by 2010. Beginning in 1996, this IHPRPT challenge meant the development of propellants that would provide far greater energy density than current state-of-the-art propellants.
Dr. Hawkins’ interest in EILs began early on in his career beginning at Lehigh University when he worked on advanced propellants for the Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s. Knowing the untapped potential of ionic liquids to provide high energy density materials, he embarked on an effort to design and characterize the EIL family. This effort was funded by AFOSR and continues to the present day.
But it was in 2002 that Dr. Hawkins, “…thought we were on the right track when we produced an ionic liquid monopropellant that incorporated an EIL that was investigated under our AFOSR program. This propellant class, known as AF-M315, has an energy density close to twice that of the state-of-the-art spacecraft monopropellant, hydrazine.” With additional support from the IHPRPT program, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and related USAF missile programs, a full characterization of one of these new propellants, AF-M315E, was investigated for its overall safety and hazard properties. According to Dr. Hawkins, these safety properties, coupled with the performance of AF-M315E, were “…absolutely outstanding; we found the oral toxicity of AF-M315E to be less than that of caffeine, and its vapor toxicity to be negligible. The vapor flammability of AF-M315E was essentially nil, and this made it difficult to unexpectedly ignite and sustain combustion of AF-M315E—one could even put out small fires with the propellant!”
In 2005 NASA took a keen interest in this very promising alternative to hydrazine and performed further evaluations. Follow on work performed by Aerojet, Inc. brought AF-M315E engine design to a level that was very attractive for a technology transition to the commercial sector. But for that to occur, it was necessary to find a champion to sponsor the flight demonstration that would make AF-M315E spacecraft propulsion an ‘off-the-shelf’ choice for future propulsion systems. NASA became that champion in 2012 with their selection of Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corporation as the lead integrator for the Green Propellant Infusion Mission—a $45 million program that will produce new AF-M315E- based thrusters for NASA’s 2015 spacecraft mission. Additional program team members consist of the Air force Research Laboratory, Aerojet, Inc., the Air Force Space & Missile Systems Center and the NASA/Glenn Research Center.
The field of energetic ionic liquids is the product of AFOSR-sponsored research at AFRL that is changing the landscape of work in the energetic materials community. According to Dr. Hawkins: “The AFOSR- funded program provided the synthesis and characterization work for an EIL that enabled the experimental USAF fuel, AF-M315E, to act as a high-energy density, environmentally benign, easy-to-handle replacement for spacecraft hydrazine fuel.”
Hawkins also noted that twenty years is a well-recognized time period for producing such a revolutionary propellant approach and propulsion system due to the fact that the EIL approach to liquid propulsion is completely different than that of hydrazine, and, most significantly, the performance potentials of EIL-based propellants are not small incremental improvements, but significantly larger than any state-of-the-art propellant. As EIL-based propellants are developed, they will provide lower cost and safer propulsion system operations along with greater mission flexibility and faster mission response times.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I what way is this Green ? less toxic ? looks like they found a better fuel that HAPPENED to be less toxic to humans … not Green …
This is NOT “green”. Good grief. It’s just another advancement in technology, just like hydrazine was in it’s day. There has never been a day when NASA (and all other rocket launching entities) haven’t wanted something “more benign” than hydrazine.
Secondly, almost all propellants that are discharged into the atmosphere from NASA rockets are solid rocket material, and water (LOX and hydrogen engines).
Interesting article, thanks Anthony. It seems as if the inherent properties (stability, energy density) of the fuel are enough to commend it to testing, and the ‘Eco / Green’ label more of a fashion statement….?
Sounds like the stuff is not so much ‘greener’, but a better performer.
It sounds good. Hope it works.
A step-change in technology can only help bring commercial spaceflight closer.
And I still want to go to the moon (no-one has in my lifetime).
Not suitable I know for the purpose outlined above, but a liquid hydrogen / lox engine can already be environmentally friendly.
The navies Russian and American have experience with monopropellants, some of it good, some of it H2O2.
In another century or culture, the press release would have said “More Pleasing to God’s Nostrils”. Same thing here – the PR department is tasked with coming up with a way to make any new development sound as if its in accordance with the dominant cultural memes of the day.
And we still do not know what it actually is so we cannot judge whether it is ”greener”.
I think the point is to reduce the risk of people getting killed. Hydrazine is one of the most dangerous fuels to handle. The quantities employed in RCS or auxillary motors are small, but ground crews have to follow elaborate safety procedures. If it can be replaced thats good without reference to “environment” apart from the working environment.
But more importantly, how will this affect US/Muslim relations?
By the article, they’re about 10 years into testing and characterization of the basic formulation.
Now if they could get a Project Morpheus 1.5D vehicle built to test this fuel…. 😉
@johnmarshall
HydroxylAmmonium Nitrate
https://ehb8.gsfc.nasa.gov/sbir/public/documentDownload;jsessionid=tflvQygQYmW57nf7sQ3XDT02KXyxDkTGbHJ216Dr1TbVmKvy24m9!175281272?contractNum=NNX11CE41P&severFile=195762_08_18_2011_12_08_20.pdf&proposalId=SBIR_10_P1_104446
Over time I became allergic to anything claimed being “green” but this actually looks good. One almost doesn’t want to believe it can be used as rocket fuel.
Hydrazine definitely is a hazardous substance so replacing it by something safer and even more effective would be very nice.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA522113
Naaah! The only true green method is to use wind power. (sarc off)
According to Wikipedia, the solution is corrosive and toxic and may be carcinogenic.
I have worked with AFRL for 15 years on testing and certification of alternative jet fuels and have found the AF to be very thorough in its evaluation of new fuels and technologies. Here is a paper released by the AF describing some of the tox and performance testing of AF-M315E. I have yet to determine the chemical composition as they seem to want to keep it confidential.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA522113
REDUCED TOXICITY, HIGH PERFORMANCE MONOPROPELLANT AT THE U.S. AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY
T.W. Hawkins*, A.J. Brand*, M.B. McKay* and M. Tinnirello*
*Air Force Research Laboratory, 10 E. Saturn Blvd, Edwards AFB CA 93524, USA, Email:tommy.hawkins@edwards.af.mil
What is critical is the specific impulse of the fuel. The lift provided per mass of fuel defines the performance limits of the system.
Time will tell if this is a good move, but it appears to at least be a safe move. Calling it Green though is just a misdirection to give it a good reception in the current political environment.
Bob
It may be a better fuel, but to label it as “Green” requires the FTC to review it.
Wonder if they’ve done that?
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/10/greenguides.shtm
If this pans out, this fuel will be a boon not only to spaceflight, but to aircraft such as the F-16 that uses a Hydrazine-powered APU for emergency power.
I’m not saying there won’t be any future accidents in space exploration, but if and when they do occur, I don’t think it will be due to lack of testing or readiness of their new propellant. If NASA says it’s ready to go in 2015, then I think it will be ready to go. If it’s not ready, I’m sure they would delay it.
Many people believe that it was changing to a green foam on the fuel tank that led to chunks of it breaking off and dooming a shuttle. (Discovery?)
Dr. Bob says:
May 8, 2013 at 6:21 am
I have worked with AFRL for 15 years on testing and certification of alternative jet fuels and have found the AF to be very thorough in its evaluation of new fuels and technologies. Here is a paper released by the AF describing some of the tox and performance testing of AF-M315E. I have yet to determine the chemical composition as they seem to want to keep it confidential.
———————————————————————-
“It’s people!”
“AF-M315E is people”
Oops, wrong movie plot.
cn
Why are we worried about H2NNH2? It decomposes to things like NH3OH which nature handles just fine. Too much CH3COOH can be deadly too, as is HCl and NaOH. Combine the latter two and you get salt water. Hydrazine toxicity? Duh, but a bogus concern. On the other hand, if you used a propellant based on Hg, THAT would be toxic, and would pose a problem no matter how it transformed in nature (although HgS is one of the least bad choices).
NASA had been working on methane rocket engines for a few years:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/04may_methaneblast/
(Turn the volume up if you can for the brief video at that link. 🙂 It’s pretty cool.)
Methane might not be “green enough” for some people, but it’s interesting just the same.
When asked about the technical problems with their plans to fly a rocket to the sun, NASA responded that they intended to fly at night.