NASA to fly 'green' rockets

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.

###
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

65 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael J. Dunn
May 8, 2013 12:26 pm

Yep, “green” is a PR label. The utility is reduced toxicity and improved performance.
It doesn’t matter where the propellant is used, in air, in space, or in Timbuktu. What matters is that the propellant is loaded on Earth in the presence of people. Anybody who wants to snort hydrazine vapors is, well…welcome to a short life.
“Eco-zealot” was probably what was meant before the spellcheck got to it.
Twice the energy density and 50% performance improvement are not incompatible facts. You just have to understand that rocket propulsion is all about momentum (not energy) and that the rocket equation is nonlinear.
John Clark (“Ignition”) was involved in Navy activity in the 1960s to develop a high-performance monopropellant and succeeded with Cavea B, which outperformed hydrazine, had 40% higher density, was extremely stable, and had low toxicity (an organic salt dissolved in nitric acid).
Depressingly, NASA is totally hidebound when it comes to propellant selection, which is the key technology of rocket propulsion. After making fateful design decisions during the Apollo program in the 1960s, they have never re-opened their thinking. The Strategic Defense Initiative was a breath of fresh air in this department, but there are many options still unexploited (such as burning a fuel consisting of slurried aluminum, with an oxidizer such as hydrogen peroxide or azeotropic nitric acid).

May 8, 2013 1:32 pm

New to laptop keyboards and ‘auto-spell-check’….which if you don’t watch every word, will pick the properly spelled WRONG word….the Columbia/Challenger was poor fact check prior to post….my bad.
[see Warmists, a big boy can admit a boo-boo…or two]

G P Hanner
May 8, 2013 1:45 pm

What it comes down to is that rocket fuel is about as green as it’s going to get.

ralfellis
May 8, 2013 2:13 pm

The Shuttle main engines (SME) were hydrogen and oxygen, and you cannot get much greener than that in terms of what you put into the atmosphere.
Except, of course, that you have to generate the LHy and the Lox, which takes lots of fossil fuels.
And except, of course, that water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas, and you are putting this water vapour way up in the atmosphere.
What we need, is Arthur C Clarke’s space elevator – that would be a neat solution.
.

Janice Moore
May 8, 2013 3:12 pm

“…we found the oral toxicity of AF-M315E to be less than that of caffeine, …”
Sounds like this is a big ADVERTISMENT aimed at those who fear accidentally reaching for a cup of rocket fuel instead of their cup of coffee (and who likely sniff some propellants, too).
Gotta educate those we can and vote the rest of those “Green is cool” ignoramuses out of office.

F. Ross
May 8, 2013 3:30 pm

jorgekafkazar says:
May 8, 2013 at 5:45 am
Good one! Certainly that would be a prime concern. …erk!

May 8, 2013 4:31 pm

No! The only true green method is to use giant elastic bands tensioned by hand driven cranks.

Janice Moore
May 8, 2013 5:19 pm

“So what is the chemical structure of this mono-propellant … ?” [Michael Hart, 5/8/13 at 0855]
LOL. It’s: C-something-something=O-H=N-O

Doug Jones
May 8, 2013 5:27 pm

My friend George Herbert put his tongue firmly in cheek when he invented PolyAcetylOzone, or HOOOCCH, a few years back. Caution: very nerdy humor follows:
http://www.retro.com/hooocch/acezone.html

Janice Moore
May 8, 2013 9:57 pm

Doug Jones (re: 5/8/13 at 5:27PM) Ha, ha ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaa! Thanks for sharing. Nerds are cool. So, how many cases of HOOOCCH did you sell? LOL

johnmarshall
May 9, 2013 2:51 am

West.
Thanks for the info. Now clear and would seem to be better.

wermet
May 9, 2013 7:33 am

TomB says, “Uh, aren’t all descent phase burns done outside of Earth’s atmosphere?”
Currently, yes that is the case. However, many companies are working on vertical landing rockets and capsules. These will require some form of rocket propulsion in the atmosphere and most importantly at ground level. Using hydrazine in these applications is dangerous and potentially fatal to those involved. Any improvement in fuel toxicity reduction would result in substantial saving through reduced handling costs. Any improvement in energy density would result in more compact and lighter fuel storage tanks and rockets.
Extremely small amounts of hydrazine can be fatal. If you will recall, even the Space Shuttle with its hydrazine reaction control system needed to be “safed” prior to the astronauts exiting the spacecraft. BTW, safing hydrazine involves washing contaminated surfaces with ammonia (if I remember correctly). Hydrazine is so toxic, if you can smell it, you have already been exposed to a fatal dose. (In previous training, I was informed that hydrazine smells like ammonia. When asked how the trainer knew that, he replied, “That’s what’s been reported by folks who carelessly handled the stuff, just before they died.”)

Michael J. Dunn
May 9, 2013 12:00 pm

Don’t be carried away with the Space Shuttle Main Engine (hydrogen + oxygen propellants). The Shuttle required the use of large solid boosters, whose exhaust products included copious amounts of aluminum oxide and hydrogen chloride ( + water = hydrochloric acid). Which still is a big nothing compared to your average active volcano.

cubiclecommando
May 9, 2013 2:08 pm

I think everyone is over-thinking the whole thing. I say make a giant Mentos/Diet Pepsi engine. It’s biodegradeable and fun to watch.

May 10, 2013 2:37 pm

So they fell short of talking about how or what the anion and cation materials are. I guess that’s a secret. If something have twice the energy potential which can be easily extracted with the process, yet is stable unless introduced with the right materials, then we have a technical winner.
Lots and lots of testing will be needed. Sounds like a fun project.
As a concerned tax-payer, will I have to pay for this too?