Aerospace Science and Technology 77 (2018) 67–82

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

Performance assessment of electrically driven pump-fed LOX/kerosene

cycle rocket engine: Comparison with gas generator cycle
Hyun-Duck Kwak a,b,∗ , Sejin Kwon b , Chang-Ho Choi a
a
Turbopump Team, Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI), 169-84 Gwahangno, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34133, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Aerospace Engineering, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), KAIST 291
Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34141, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An electrically driven pump-fed cycle for rocket engine is proposed and a viability of the proposed cycle is
Received 15 November 2017 assessed compared to a gas generator cycle. The maximum possible thrust level is determined considering
Received in revised form 21 February 2018 the technological maturity of the electric motor. Four types of battery cells were assessed in a screening
Accepted 21 February 2018
test for the proposed cycle and the necessity of regenerative cooling for the battery pack is shown. The
Available online 27 February 2018
mass expressions of the proposed cycle and gas generator cycle are derived in terms of pump power and
Keywords: burning time. The basic features are demonstrated with respect to combustion chamber pressure, burning
Electrically driven pump time, and thrust level. The results show that it is favorable to maintain a lower combustion chamber
Turbopump pressure, a longer burning time, and a higher thrust level to remedy the payload penalty incurred when
Gas generator the gas generator cycle is not used. In addition to focusing on the battery pack, the regenerative cooling
Velocity increment effect on the battery pack mass is discussed. Further, the impact of optimal battery cell discharge time on
Payload the payload is explained. To estimate the payload for the proposed cycle quantitatively, hypothetical low
earth orbit (LEO) and KSLV-II sun synchronous orbit (SSO) mission cases are used. In the analysis of the
hypothetical LEO mission, it is found that the proposed cycle payloads are only 2.1% to 3.5% lower than
those of the gas generator cycle when the combustion chamber pressure is 3.0 MPaA. For the KSLV-II SSO
mission, the cargo payload is increased by 3.7% compared to that of gas generator cycle if the proposed
cycle is employed for the third-stage engine.
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Electrically driven pump-fed cycle rocket engines replace the
turbines in turbopumps with battery-powered electric motors. The
most attractive feature of an electrically driven pump-fed cycle
rocket engine is the simplicity of the system. In contrast to engines
using a gas generator (GG), the components related to the turbine,
including the GG, GG igniters, pyro starter, and auxiliary valves,
can be eliminated if an electrically driven pump-fed cycle is used.
In particular, an electrically driven pump-fed cycle rocket en-
gine has been considered as an alternative to a pressure-fed cycle
rocket engine for on-board satellite propulsion. In the mid-1980’s,
the European Space Agency developed an electric propellant pump
system for satellite apogee propulsion. They developed and tested
small centrifugal electric pumps for an apogee engine with 3 kN
*
Corresponding author at: Turbopump Team, Korea Aerospace Research Institute
(KARI), 169-84 Gwahangno, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34133, Republic of Korea.
E-mail address: hdkwak@kari.re.kr (H.-D. Kwak).
thrust using MMH and NTO as propellants [1]. For maneuvers with
a smaller level of thrust, Schneider tested electric pump driven
engines using MMH and NTO with thrust levels between 5 and
400 N [2]. However, thanks to the maturity of electric motors
and battery technologies, extensive studies for new propulsion sys-
tems are now being performed in the field of aerospace. For avi-
ation transportation, electric and hybrid propulsion systems have
received a great deal of attention, and practical applications are
emerging in small- to medium-size aircraft [3–11]. Beyond its ap-
plication to aircraft and satellites, several studies in the early 2000s
used electrically driven pump-fed cycle engines for launch vehicles.
Abel and Velez proposed an electrical pump drive system using a
brushless DC motor for booster stages [12]. Raymond suggested
a propellant pump using an inertia wheel and an electric motor
[13]. Bahn proposed a rocket engine with an electric motor with
power levels below 1000 kW [14]. Casalino et al. [15] and Galfetti
et al. [16] studied an application of electrically driven pump to im-
prove the performance of hybrid rockets. Soldà and Lentini, using
a detailed mass breakdown comparison of pressure-fed cycle and
electrically driven pump-fed cycle engines, showed that the latter

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2018.02.033
1270-9638/© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
68 H.-D. Kwak et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 77 (2018) 67–82

Nomenclature

CC combustion chamber ηE energy efficiency of battery cell

CF thrust coefficient κ structural safety factor or mass margin
Cp specific heat of constant pressure μ viscosity
c∗ characteristic velocity ρ density
d diameter σ yield strength
E energy
Superscripts
F thrust
GG gas generator 0 initial
GGI gas generator igniter 1 final
GFV gas generator fuel valve
Subscripts
GFCV gas generator fuel control valve
GOV gas generator oxygen valve b bulk
GOCV gas generator oxygen control valve bc battery cell
g0 standard acceleration of gravity at sea level bp battery pack
g max maximum vehicle acceleration cc combustion chamber
h fluid head E energy
I sp specific impulse EP ElecPump cycle
k specific heat ratio em motor
LEO low earth orbit f fuel
MFV main fuel valve fp fuel pump
MOV main oxygen valve ft fuel tank
MR mass ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m1 /m0 h helium
m mass gg gas generator
ṁ mass flow rate gox gaseous oxygen
O /F propellant mixture ratio ht helium tank
P power i internal
PMSM permanent-magnet synchronous motor in inlet, input
p pressure inv inverter
R gas constant m material
r radius o oxygen
S surface area op oxygen pump
SSO sun synchronous orbit opt optimal
T temperature ot oxygen tank
tb burning time out outlet, output
td discharge time P power
ts stay time pu pumps
V volume s surface
v velocity tp turbopump
v velocity increment tu turbine
δ power density or energy density u ullage
η efficiency vac vacuum

is advantageous in terms of feed system mass [17]. Later Rachov
et al. extended Soldà and Lentini’s research into the GG cycle us-
ing MMH and NTO [18], and Spiller et al. tested a demonstrator
electric-pump feed system [19]. Their remarkable work showed
that an electrically driven pump-fed cycle engine outperforms a
GG cycle engine in terms of mass ratio for long burning times.
Most recently Vaughan et al. reported the feasibility of an elec-
trically driven pump-fed storable bi-propellant rocket engine for a
Mars ascent vehicle [20]. For LOX/kerosene propellants, Dibrivny et
al. carried out an analytical estimation of electropump supply sys-
tems using a baseline RD868T engine with a thrust level of 23 kN,
They concluded that an electropump supply system are suitable
for small total impulses, up to 1000 kN-s [21]. Most remarkably,
RocketLab announced that they partially succeeded in launching
the Electron rocket, which uses an electrically driven pump-fed cy-
cle engine called the Rutherford engine [22].
A goal of this study is an assessment of the viability of the
electrically driven pump-fed LOX/Kerosene cycle rocket engine, in
particular compared to the GG cycle. A new scheme of electrically
driven pump-fed cycle is proposed. The mass expressions of the
proposed and GG cycles are derived in terms of pump power and
burning time. The performances of the proposed cycle such as spe-
cific impulse, mass ratio, and payload are shown compared with
that of a GG cycle. This work is organized as follows. Section 2
presents the general features of the proposed cycle including its
advantages and disadvantages. The maximum thrust level is deter-
mined by considering the technological maturity of current motors
and the feasibility of application is shown with respect to thermal
issues. In addition, the energy efficiency of the battery pack ac-
cording to discharge time is described and its cooling method is
introduced. Section 3 presents the mass expressions in terms of
pump power and burning time. The analysis parameters are de-
fined in Section 4, and Section 5 discusses the basic figures of the
proposed cycle. The effects of battery pack regenerative cooling
and battery cell optimal time are also discussed. Furthermore, us-
ing two case studies (a hypothetical low earth orbit mission and
the KSLV-II sun synchronous orbit mission), the viability of the
proposed cycle is evaluated. Finally, the results are summarized in
Section 6.
 H.-D. Kwak et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 77 (2018) 67–82 69

is necessary to cool the battery pack. In the proposed cycle, some

fuel from the pump outlet is introduced into the battery pack and
then returned to the pump inlet. The mass flow rate and pres-
sure of the coolant is controlled by an orifice inserted in the outlet
by-pass line. Lastly, an inverter that converts the DC power to AC
power controls the rotational speed and output power of the mo-
tor.

2.1. Advantages and disadvantages

Table 1 compares the engine components of the GG cycle and

Fig. 1. Schematic of the ElecPump cycle.
2. ElecPump cycle
Fig. 1 shows a schematic of the proposed cycle [23]. An electri-
cally driven pump (ElecPump) supplies high-pressure propellants
into a combustion chamber. The ElecPump consists of centrifugal
pumps for each propellant and a single driving motor on one axis.
In fact, a dual motor configuration; that employs independent mo-
tors for each pump, is more flexible, because each pump is able
to operate under different conditions such as mass flow rate and
head rise with differential rotational speeds. However, adhere to
a design that is similar to most turbopump-fed GG cycle engines,
the analysis here is constrained to a single motor driven ElecPump.
In this configuration, there is an inter-propellant seal to prevent
the mixing of the LOX and kerosene, and small amount of gaseous
oxygen inherently leaks from the inter-propellant seal [24]. This is
used as coolant for the motor. The battery pack is composed of
several unit battery cells, and its capacity is determined by the re-
quired power and energy of the motor. Because the efficiency of
the battery cells is quite sensitive to environmental temperature, it
the ElecPump cycle. In the ElecPump cycle, a number of main com-
ponents related to the GG cycle are eliminated. In addition, igniters
such as the pyro starter and GG igniter, which utilize explosive
power, are removed as well. A preliminary estimation by the au-
thors yields that the number of components in the ElecPump cycle
is reduced by 26%. The simplicity of the engine system leads to
labor and cost savings in the engine development and operation
phases. Moreover, the combustion chamber is the only compo-
nent operating at high temperature in the ElecPump cycle. Because
components operating at high temperatures such as the turbine
and GG are removed, many design and operation challenges can
be resolved. Fig. 2 illustrates the simplicity of the ElecPump cycle.
One of the key difficulties in engine development is establishing an
ignition sequence because it is s concurrent procedure that must
consider all the characteristics of the components. For the GG cy-
cle, the ignition sequence is as follows: 1) pyro ignition, 2) GGI
ignition, 3) TEAL open, 4) MFV open, 5) MOV open, 6) GFV open,
7) GOV open, and 8) engine start. For example, all these procedures
are completed within 0.4 s in KARI’s 7-ton class rocket engine.
It is quite a complicated task to control the timing of the valves
exactly. In contrast, in the ElecPump cycle, the procedure is dra-
matically simplified: 1) motor run, 2) TEAL open, 3) MFV open,
4) MOV open, and 5) engine start. As a consequence, re-ignition
of the engine becomes easier than in the GG cycle because of the
shortened procedure. Moreover, the technology for the ElecPump

Table 1
Break-down of engine components.

Lv. 1 Lv. 2 Lv. 3 Lv. 1 Lv. 2 Lv. 3

GG engine CC Dome ElecPump engine CC Dome
Injectors Injectors
Chamber Chamber

Turbopump LOX pump ElecPump LOX pump

Fuel pump Fuel pump
Turbine Motor

GG Dome
Injector
Chamber

Igniters Pyro starter Igniters TEAL

GG igniter
TEAL

Valve and pipe MOV Valve and pipe MOV

MFV MFV
GOV Others
GFV
GOCV
GFCV
Others

Assemblies Brackets Assemblies Brackets

Fasteners Fasteners

Controls Acceleration Controls Acceleration

Pressure Pressure
Temperature Temperature
Inverter
70 H.-D. Kwak et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 77 (2018) 67–82

Fig. 2. Ignition sequence comparison.

cycle is spin-on, not spin-off. The key features of the ElecPump cy-
cle are the motor and the battery pack, and these technologies are
making rapid progress because of their high commercial demands.
Thus, one can expect more powerful motors and lighter battery
packs to be developed in the near future, which would enhance
the performance of the ElecPump cycle rocket engine.
Despite the advantages described above, the ElecPump cycle
has one critical weakness: the battery pack. In the GG cycle, the
propellant for the gas generator, which drives the turbine, is con-
sumed during engine burning and its mass is not counted in the
final mass. In contrast, for the ElecPump cycle, the mass of battery
pack remains in the final mass. This fact aggravates the mass ra-
tio, which consequently incurs payload penalty. However, there is
no loss of engine specific impulse in the ElecPump cycle. In the
GG cycle, the propellants to drive the GG rarely contribute to the
thrust (approximately less than 1% of the total thrust). In contrast,
all propellants solely contribute to the thrust when the ElecPump
cycle is employed. In consequence, there is some gain in the spe-
cific impulse that compensates for the mass ratio penalty. Thus, Fig. 3. Rotational speed vs. turbopump power with respect to PMSM power limits
[21,29–34].
balancing the specific impulse gain and the mass ratio penalty is
important for the ElecPump cycle.
for the ElecPump cycle only considering power. However, because
2.2. Motor the motor power limits are dependent on their rotational speeds,
turbopump rotational speeds also should be taken into account. In
The proposed cycle uses a single motor to drive the pumps. Fig. 3, the rotational speeds of the LR87-AJ-3 and MA-5 sustainer
The maximum motor power limits should be considered to de- do not match those of a PMSM. Further, the application for the
termine the possible thrust level of the proposed cycle, because KTP-030 and LR91-AJ-3 are questionable because they are nearly
the pump power is directly related to the thrust. The motor needs on the PMSM limits. Thus, to retain a conservative assessment of
to have high speed and high power. A promising candidate is a the current maturity of motor technology, the maximum thrust
permanent-magnet synchronous motor (PMSM) [25–28]. Kolond- level is limited to under 100 kN in this analysis. However, the dual
zovski et al. reported the maximum-power limits of PMSM ac- motor configuration, in which each pump is driven by independent
cording to rotational speeds [29]. Fig. 3 compares shows some motors, would double this limit.
historical LOX/kerosene GG cycle turbopump power data with Another consideration is cooling. Compared to the dimensions
PMSM power limits [21,29–34]. The reported PMSM power lim- of a conventional motor, those of the PMSM are much smaller.
its are dependent on rotational speeds and range from 55 kW at The loss density is much higher, which leads to thermal control
100,000 rpm to 1500 kW at 20,000 rpm. As can be observed in
issues due to high heat flux. The most sensitive parts of the PMSM
Fig. 3, two turbopumps (KTP-007 and RD-868) are clearly below
are permanent-magnets in the rotor because overheating causes
the PMSM power limits. Further, some turbopumps (LR91-AJ-3,
demagnetization. The maximum allowed temperature for the mag-
KTP-030, and LR87-AJ-3) are nearly at the border of the PMSM
nets was reported to be 403 K [29,35,36]. To cool the motor, the
power limits, and the RD-103, RD-107 and KTP-075 turbopumps
are below or close to the PMSM power limits. However, to en- inherent leakage of gaseous oxygen from the LOX pump is em-
sure objectivity, the data of those turbopumps (RD-103, RD-107 ployed. The leakage flow rate is dependent on the LOX pump ca-
and KTP-075) are not considered because the pumps were oper- pacity, and it generally is about 0.5% of the nominal pump flow
ating in the outer range reported in [29]. Fig. 4 re-presents the rate. The maximum temperature of the rotor is first predicted for
data of Fig. 3 taking vacuum thrust into account. Clearly, the tur- the ElecPump cycle analysis. In fact, the authors’ research group
bopumps below the PMSM power limit of 20,000 rpm are suitable is developing a prototype PMSM with a rated power of 340 kW
 H.-D. Kwak et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 77 (2018) 67–82 71

Fig. 4. Vacuum thrust vs. turbopump power with respect to PMSM power limits [21,
29–34].
Fig. 5. Predicted rotor temperature of the PMSM according to vacuum thrust.

(equivalent to 70 kN thrust, approximately). Based on the basic

Table 2
design dimensions of the prototype, some modifications have been
Specifications of selected battery cells.
made in accordance with the thrust level and the rotor tempera-
Designation Type Power density Energy density C-rate
ture during operation is predicted. An exact prediction of the rotor
(kW/kg) (Wh/kg)
temperature (a 3D electromagnetic-fluid coupled problem) is costly
A cell Li-ion 1.53 230.0 6.7
and slow. Instead, a simple approach is used to explore feasibility. B cell Li-ion 1.64 213.0 7.7
Because the heat transfer in the cooling channels of the PMSM can C cell Li-polymer 1.68 168.2 10.0
be modeled as forced convection in turbulent pipe flow, Seider– D cell Li-polymer 6.95 198.5 35.0

Tate correlation [37] is used for the calculation.

 0.14
μb
Nu = 0.023Re4/5 Pr1/3
μs
Because, the aspect ratio of the cooling channels is not large
enough to treat them as a long pipe, the Nusselt number should
be corrected for the short pipe case, as follows.
   0 .7 
di
Nucorrected = Nu 1 +
L Fig. 6 shows the ratio of total measured energy to nominal en-
Equation (1) is implicit, and iterative calculations are needed to
determine the surface temperature of the rotor. As stated above,
the mass flow rate of gaseous oxygen leaks from the LOX pump
is assumed to be 0.5% of the nominal flow rate. The bulk temper-
ature and pressure in the cooling channels are also assumed to
be 150 K and 0.2 MPaA, respectively (an average value of leaked
gaseous oxygen from the LOX pump). The electromagnetic loss is
set to be 1.5% of the motor power [29,35]. Fig. 5 shows the pre-
dicted rotor temperature according to thrust levels up to 100 kN.
Clearly, the rotor temperatures are under the limit of 403 K and
the use of a PMSM for the ElecPump cycle is valid up to the max-
imum thrust level of interest in this study. The gaseous mass flow
rates for motor cooling are neglected in this study because they
comprise a relatively small amount of the LOX pump flow rate.
2.3. Battery pack
A battery pack consists of battery cells, a battery management
system (internal circuit and software), wires, and a case. Of all the
features of the battery pack, a battery cell with higher power and
energy densities is desirable because this ensures a lighter battery
pack. The actual battery cell characteristics are greatly influenced
by the conditions of use. Therefore, a battery cell screening test
was conducted. Four types of commercially available lithium-based
battery cells were chosen, and their actual available energy was
measured while varying two conditions: discharge time and en-
(1) vironmental temperature. The basic specifications of the selected
cells are given in Table 2. The current rate (C-rate) is an index of
the energy discharge rate of the battery cell, which is defined as a
function of discharge time (td ).
3600
Current Rate = (3)
td
(2)
ergy versus the discharge time, at room temperature. The available
energy clearly declines with a shorter discharge time for all types
of battery cells, which means that the available energy is a func-
tion of the discharge time (i.e., current rate). Two Li-ion battery
cells (A and B cells) showed a significant voltage drop for short
discharge times (less than 400 s) and their results are not plotted
in Fig. 6. The D cells had the most favorable characteristic from
the viewpoint of available energy with respect to time. Thus, the
D cell was chosen for further analysis. To account for the effects
of discharge time on available energy, energy efficiency (η E ) is in-
troduced, and is assumed to be a logarithmic function of discharge
time (td ). Using the test data in Fig. 6, the energy efficiency of the
D cell is given below.
η E = 0.093 ln(td ) + 0.3301 (4)
Another major concern for the battery pack is cooling. In the
screening test, it was also found that there is an environmental
temperature range in which the battery cells have the available
energy. Fig. 7 shows the measured energy of D cells according to
environmental temperature. Three random samples were taken for
the test. The D cells have an available energy that is close to nom-
inal value when the environmental temperature is between 274
and 314 K. To estimate a coolant mass flow rate, it is assumed
that the overall battery cell energy loss is dissipated into heat and
72 H.-D. Kwak et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 77 (2018) 67–82

mass of the combustion chamber is not included, because its mass

would be canceled out in the cross-comparison.

3.1. Gas generator cycle

The total mass of the GG cycle (mGG ) is defined as the combined

masses of the turbopump, GG, propellants (LOX and kerosene), he-
lium gas, LOX tank, fuel tank, and helium tank.

mGG = mtp + m gg + mo + m f + mh + mot + mft + mht (6)

Note that the masses of propellants (mo and m f ) in Eq. (6) in-
clude the propellant masses for driving the GG itself.

3.1.1. Turbopump mass

Fig. 6. Measured energy of the battery cells according to the discharge time.
Assuming no mechanical loss between the pumps and turbine,
the turbopump power equals the power consumed in the pumps
and the power generated from the turbine ( P tp = P pu = P tu ). The
turbopump power is proportional to the mass flow rates times the
head rise in the pump and the turbopump mass is related to its
power. Thus, the turbopump mass can be expressed in terms of
the mass flow rate and pump head rise. The turbopump power
( P tp ) is given in terms of both mass flow rate and the head rise of
the LOX and fuel pumps:

 p op ṁop  p f p ṁ f p
P tp = P pu = P op + P f p = + (7)
ρo ηop ρ f η fp
where  p op ,  p f p , ṁop , ṁ f p , ηop and η f p represent the head rise,
mass flow rate and efficiency of the LOX and fuel pumps, respec-
tively. Introducing the concept of turbopump power density (power
per unit mass, δtp ), the turbopump mass is

1 1 1
mtp = P tp = P pu = ( P op + P f p ) (8)
δtp δtp δtp

3.1.2. Gas generator mass

The mass of a GG can be calculated from its volume and wall
thickness. The volume is determined by the stay time (t s ) method
Fig. 7. Measured energy of the D cells according to the environmental temperature. [38] as
t s ṁ gg
absorbed by the coolant. Then, the energy loss per unit time is ex- V gg = (9)
pressed in terms of coolant mass flow rate as follows: ρ gg
Assuming a spherical shape, the mass of GG can be expressed
E bp_loss (1 − η E ) E bp
= = C p , f ṁcoolant  T (5) as [18]
td td
3κ gg ρ gg ,m p gg t s
where  T is the allowable temperature increase of the coolant. m gg = ṁ gg (10)
2σ gg ,m ρ gg
Because the required energy of the battery pack and coolant mass
flow rate are coupled (note that fuel is used as a coolant and where κ gg , ρ gg ,m , p gg , and σ gg ,m are the structural safety fac-
pump power varies with mass flow rate), an iterative calculation tor, material density of the GG wall, GG pressure, and GG material
is needed to determine the necessary coolant mass flow rate. An yield strength, respectively. Assuming a single-stage supersonic im-
initial guess of the coolant mass flow rate is made, and the mini- pulse turbine with an adiabatic process, the turbine power ( P tu ) is
mum value of the coolant mass flow rate is then iteratively found. given as follows [39]:
The initial temperature of the battery pack was assumed to be
274 K and the allowable coolant temperature increase was limited    1−k k g g 
ptu ,in gg
to 40 K. P tu = ηtu C p , gg ṁ gg T tu ,in 1 − (11)
ptu ,out
3. Mass evaluation The mass flow rate of the GG according to the turbopump power
can be estimated from Eq. (11).
The mass estimation for the GG cycle and ElecPump cycle is
well-described in a previous study [18], and the present analy- 3.1.3. Propellant masses
sis basically follows this framework. The masses of the following The propellant masses are directly proportional to the pump
major components are considered: turbopump, GG, ElecPump, in- mass flow rate and engine burning time (tb ). The propellant
verter, motor, battery pack, helium tank, propellant tanks, helium masses are
gas and propellants. The masses of the following minor compo-
nents are neglected: valves, pipelines, mountings and controls. The mo = κ p ṁop tb (12)
 H.-D. Kwak et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 77 (2018) 67–82 73

m f = κ p ṁ f p tb (13) internal pressure and the volume of propellant, respectively. Ex-

panding Eq. (22) for both propellants yields
where κ p is the margin of propellant representing the remaining  
propellant masses in the pipes and pumps after the engine shuts kh p ot ,i V o + p f t ,i V f
mh = κh κu (23)
down. R h T h0 1 − p h1 / p h0

3.1.4. Propellant tank mass (LOX tank and fuel tank) 3.1.6. Helium tank mass
The propellant tank mass can be estimated by multiplying its The required helium tank volume (V ht ) is given as
material density, surface area, and thickness. It is assumed that
both propellant tanks are spherical. For the LOX tank, the tank ra- mh R h T h0
V ht = (24)
dius (rot ) and tank surface area (S ot ) with a given volume (V ot ) p h0
are
Assuming a spherical shape, the gas tank mass (mht ) is ex-
 1/3 pressed in the form of
3
rot = V ot (14)  
4π 3ρht ,m kh p ot ,i V o + p f t ,i V f
 2/3 mht = κh κht κu (25)
3 2σht ,m 1 − p h1 / p h0
2
S ot = 4π rot = 4π V ot (15)
4π where and κ gt , ρ gt ,m , and σ gt ,m are the structural safety fac-
tor, helium tank material density, and helium tank material yield
whereas the volume of the LOX tank is defined as
strength, respectively.

V ot = κu V o + V ht (16) 3.1.7. Gas generator cycle mass

Here, κu is a factor representing the ullage volume in the tank. From Eq. (6) and the above equations for the mass of each com-
Note that the LOX tank volume includes the helium tank volume ponent, the total mass of the GG cycle is given as follows:
(V ht ), because it is assumed that the helium tank is immersed in
  
1  p op ṁop  p f p ṁ f p
the LOX tank. The maximum pressure on the walls of the lower mGG = + A 1 p gg +
δtp ρo ηop ρ f η fp
and upper LOX tank hemispheres can be written as follows:
  ṁop tb
+ A 3 + κ p ρo + p ot ,i ( A 2 + A 3 A 4 ) (26)
p ot ,lower = p ot ,i + ρo g max ho0 (17) ρo
    ṁ f p tb
p ot ,upper = p ot ,i + ρo g max ho0 − rot (18) + A 5 + κ p ρ f + p f t ,i ( A 2 + A 3 A 4 )
ρf
where p ot ,i , ρo , g max , and ho0 represent the internal pressure of the     1−k k g g −1
tank, LOX density, maximum vehicle acceleration, and initial fluid 3κ gg ρ gg ,m t s ptu ,in gg
A1 = ηtu C p, gg T tu,in 1 − (27)
head. For the upper hemisphere, the radius of the LOX tank is ex- 2σ gg ,m ρ gg ptu ,out
tracted from the initial fluid head to account for different loading  
kh 1 3ρht ,m
conditions, which means that the lower and upper hemispheres A 2 = κh κu κ p + κht (28)
have different thicknesses. The thicknesses of the lower and upper 1 − p h1 / p h0 R h T h0 2σht ,m
hemi-spheres can be calculated using thin-walled theory. Then, the 3ρot ,m
A 3 = κ p κu κt ( p ot ,lower + p ot ,upper ) (29)
mass of the LOX tank is expressed as 4σot ,m
3ρot ,m κh kh
mot = κt V ot ( p ot ,lower + p ot ,upper ) (19) A4 = (30)
4σot ,m ( ph0 − ph1 )
where κt , ρot ,m and σot ,m are the structural safety factor, LOX tank
3ρ f t ,m
A 5 = κ p κu κt ( p f t ,lower + p f t ,upper ) (31)
material density, and LOX tank material yield strength, respectively. 4σ f t ,m
In a similar manner, the mass of the fuel tank is given as
3.2. ElecPump cycle
3ρft,m
mft = κt V ft ( p ft,lower + p ft,upper ) (20)
4σft,m For the total mass of the ElecPump cycle (mEP ), the masses
of the LOX pump, fuel pump, motor, inverter, battery pack, pro-
where the volume of the fuel tank is defined as pellants (LOX and kerosene), helium gas, LOX tank, fuel tank and
helium tank are considered.
V ft = κu V f (21)
mEP = mop + m f p + mem + minv + mbp + mo
3.1.5. Helium gas mass
The pressurizing helium gas for the propellant is essential for + m f + mh + mot + mft + mht (32)
accommodating the required pump inlet pressure. The mass of the
3.2.1. Pump mass
helium gas (mh ), by accounting margin (κh ), can be simply deter-
By the introducing pump power densities for the LOX and fuel
mined assuming an ideal gas and adiabatic expansion [38],
pumps (δop and δ f p ), similar to Eq. (6), the LOX and fuel pump
 
pV kh masses can be expressed as follows:
mh = κh (22)
R h T h0 1 − p h1 / p h0 P op 1  p op ṁop
mop = = (33)
δop δop ρo ηop
where p h1 , p h0 and T h0 are the helium tank pressure after use, initial
P fp 1  p f p ṁ f p
helium tank pressure, and the initial helium storage temperature, m fp = = (34)
respectively. In addition, p and V represent the propellant tank δ fp δ fp ρ f η fp
74 H.-D. Kwak et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 77 (2018) 67–82

3.2.2. Motor mass 3.2.5. ElecPump cycle mass

The motor mass (mem ) is found by defining the mechanical out- For the masses of the last six terms on the right-hand side of
put power density of the motor (δem ). Eq. (32), the same expressions in the GG cycle are applied, except
for Eq. (13). As previously described in Section 2, some amount of
P em,out
δem = (35) fuel from the pump outlet flows into the battery pack as coolant
mem
and returns to the pump inlet. Therefore, for the ElecPump cycle,
Assuming no mechanical loss between the pumps and motor, Eq. (13) is revised as
the motor mass is given as
m f = κ p (ṁ f p − ṁcoolant )tb (44)
1 1
mem = P em,out = ( P op + P f p ) (36)
δem δem From the definition of Eq. (32), the total mass of the ElecPump
cycle is expressed as a function of mass flow rate, head rise, and
3.2.3. Inverter mass burning time.
In a similar fashion, the electric output power density of the      
inverter (δinv ) is defined:
1  p op ṁop 1  p f p ṁ f p
mEP = + B1 + + B1
δop ρo ηop δ fp ρ f η fp
P inv,out
δinv = (37)   ṁop tb
minv + A 3 + κ p ρo + p ot ,i ( A 2 + A 3 A 4 ) (45)
ρo
Because the ratio of motor mechanical output power to in-
  (ṁ f p − ṁcoolant )tb
verter electrical output power represents the efficiency of the mo- + A 5 + κ p ρ f + p f t ,i ( A 2 + A 3 A 4 )
tor (ηem ), the inverter mass is given as ρf
 
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 tb
minv = P inv,out = P em,out = ( P op + P f p ) (38) B1 = + + κbp MAX , (46)
δinv δinv ηem δinv ηem δm δinv ηem ηinv ηem δbc, P η E δbc, E

3.2.4. Battery pack mass 4. Analysis parameters

There are two factors for estimating the battery pack mass:
Table 3 summarizes the comparative study parameters. To de-
the power density and energy density. Depending on the required
termine the turbopump power density, some case studies were
power or energy, either the power density or the energy density
performed using practical data. Fig. 8 plots the power densities of
constrains the mass. The required electric power of the battery
turbopumps using LOX/kerosene propellant. For the GG cycle only,
pack is given as the majority of the turbopumps (indicated by dashed-box) have
1 1 power densities between 11 kW/kg and 16 kW/kg. Their mean
P bp = P inv ,in = P inv ,out = P em,out value is 13.5 kW/kg with a standard deviation of 1.5 kW/kg. In
ηinv ηinv ηem
this study, a value of 13.5 kW/kg is adopted. For the pump power
1
= ( P op + P f p ) (39) densities of the ElecPump cycle, the values of 20 kW/kg for the
ηinv ηem LOX pump and 15 kW/kg for the fuel pump are taken from the
where ηinv represents the inverter efficiency. authors’ research group reference data. In the GG cycle turbop-
Introducing the power density of the battery cell (δbc , P ), the umps, most turbines are single or dual-stage supersonic impulse
power-constrained battery pack mass can be described as turbines because of their high pressure ratio (whereas reaction tur-
bines are usually employed for staged-combustion cycles). Thus a
1 1 single-stage supersonic impulse turbine is used, as described in
mbp , P = κbp P bp = κbp ( P op + P f p ) (40)
δbc, P δbc, P ηinv ηem Section 3.1.2. Considering the temperature limit of turbine material
(INCO 718), the turbine inlet temperature is assumed to be 900 K.
In Eq. (40), a structural margin (κbp ) is adopted to account for
The efficiency of the turbine is also assumed to have a value of 52%
the necessary sub-component masses (battery management sys-
from historical data [40]. The exhausted gas properties from the
tem, wires and case) of the battery pack.
GG are determined from an empirical formulation. The GG pres-
The other constraint is energy density. In preceding studies [17,
sure is assumed to be the same as the combustion chamber pres-
18], the energy density of the battery cell was assumed to be con-
sure (p cc ). The LOX pump and fuel pump efficiencies are 66% and
stant. However, as described in Section 2.3, the practically available 61%, respectively. For the motor, a maximum value of 5.8 kW/kg
energy is a function of discharge time (i.e., burning time). The for the power density and 96% efficiency were reported for the
required electric energy of the battery pack is expressed by in- state-of-the-art PM motor [41]. In this study, a power density of
troducing the energy efficiency of battery cell (η E ). 5.3 kW/kg and 95% efficiency were chosen. The inverter properties
1 1 are assumed to be the same as in the preceding study [18]. For the
E bp = P bp tb = ( P op + P f p )tb (41) battery pack, the properties of the D cell are used. Helium is con-
ηE η E ηinv ηem sidered with an initial pressure of 27.0 MPaA and temperature of
The energy-constrained battery pack mass is given with the en- 100 K for the pressurizing gas. Titanium alloy, Ti-6AL-4V, is chosen
ergy density of the battery cell (δbc , E ) as for the helium tank material. For the propellant tanks and GG, an
aluminum alloy and INCONEL 718 are used, respectively.
1 1
mbp , E = κbp E bp = κbp ( P op + P f p )tb (42) To determine a mass flow rate in a combustion chamber with
δbc, E δbc, E η E ηinv ηem respect to thrust level, the characteristic velocity (c ∗ ) and thrust
The battery pack mass is hence coefficient (C F ) are calculated as a function of combustion cham-
ber pressure (p cc ) using CEA [42]. The nozzle exit pressure is set to
mbp = MAX (mbp , P , mbp , E ) 0.002 MPaA in the calculations, considering the final stage applica-
  tion of a launch vehicle. Finally, the required pump outlet pressures
1 1 tb
= κbp MAX , ( P op + P f p ) (43) are assumed to be 115% for the LOX pump and 155% for the fuel
ηinv ηem δbc, P η E δbc, E pump with respect to combustion chamber pressure.
 H.-D. Kwak et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 77 (2018) 67–82 75

Table 3
Parameter values.

Parameter Value Note Parameter Value Note

C p, f 2009 J/kg-K Kerosene δbc, E 198 Wh/kg D cell
C p , gg 2024.7 J/kg-K GG gas ηop 0.66
g max 4.5g 0 η fp 0.61
kh 1.667 Helium ηtu 0.52
k gg 1.16 GG gas ηem 0.95
(O / F )cc 2.45 ηinv 0.85
(O / F ) gg 0.320 κbp 1.2
ph0 27.0 MPaA κh 1.1
ph1 5.0 MPaA κ gg 2.5
p f t ,i 0.25 MPaA κht 1.2
p ot ,i 0.4 MPaA κp 1.01
ptu ,in / ptu ,out 27 κt 2.5
Rh 2080 J/kg-K Helium κu 1.08
R gg 274.1 J/kg-K GG gas ρo 1126.1 kg/m3 LOX
T h0 100 K ρf 804.2 kg/m3 Kerosene
T tu ,in 900 K ρ gg ,m 8220 kg/m3 INCO 718
ts 10 ms ρot ,m 2850 kg/m3 AL alloy
δtp 13.5 kW/kg ρ f t ,m 2850 kg/m3 AL alloy
δop 20 kW/kg ρht ,m 4430 kg/m3 Ti-6AL-4V
δ fp 15 kW/kg σ gg ,m 550 MPa INCO 718
δem 5.3 kW/kg σot ,m 250 MPa AL alloy
δinv 60 kW/kg σ f t ,m 250 MPa AL alloy
δbc, P 6.95 kW/kg D cell σht ,m 1100 MPa Ti-6AL-4V

Fig. 8. Turbopump power densities using LOX/kerosene propellants [29–33].

5. Results
5.1. Basic features
In this section, the ElecPump cycle is analyzed in terms of mass
for application to a final stage with a thrust range of 25–100 kN.
One important feature of a final stage is that the initial mass it-
self should be as low as possible, because this mass is a payload of
the lower stages. Fig. 9 shows the initial ElecPump cycle mass ratio
to GG cycle as a function of combustion chamber pressure. For a
shorter burning time of 300 s, the ElecPump cycle weighs more
than the GG cycle, primarily because the battery pack is heav-
ier than the propellant consumed by the GG. A shorter burning
time leads to less available battery cell energy, and consequently
increases the mass of the battery pack. However, the initial mass
of the ElecPump cycle is from 0.2% to 1.3% lighter than that of
GG cycle for a longer burning time of 1200 s. In these cases, the
propellant for the GG has a higher mass than the battery pack.
The higher energy efficiency of the battery cell for long discharge
times also contributes to this advantages. Recalling that the def-
initions of the initial mass in each cycle in Eq. (4) and Eq. (30)
do not include valves, pipelines, and other structural masses, this
advantage would be further increased if the mass analysis were
expanded to the stage level in detail, because the ElecPump cycle
has fewer components than the GG cycle. To examine this phe-
nomenon in depth, the initial mass budgets are analyzed. Three
cases are demonstrated (m0EP > m0GG , m0EP = m0GG , and m0EP < m0GG ),
where p cc is 10 MPaA because the higher combustion chamber
pressure mostly influences the initial mass difference. As shown
in Fig. 9, the relative initial mass of the ElecPump cycle to that
of the GG cycle is lighter as it moves to longer burning times.
Fig. 10 presents the initial mass budgets of both cycles when the
thrust level is 100 kN. The inner circle represents the GG cycle,
while the outer circle represents the ElecPump cycle. The critical
burning time for two cycles of equal mass (m0EP = m0GG ) is 390 s.
First, the CC propellant mass is slightly more in the ElecPump cy-
cle for all cases. This is because there is no contribution to the
76 H.-D. Kwak et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 77 (2018) 67–82

thrust from the GG combustion gas in the ElecPump cycle. There-

fore, to keep the same level of thrust, the ElecPump cycle requires
slightly more propellants for the CC. Here, the battery pack mass
is considered as a kind of propellant mass because it is the energy
source used to drive the pumps instead of the GG propellants. In
fact, it is a dead propellant mass because it remains as final mass.
For all cases, the battery pack is lighter than the GG propellants.
For longer burning times, this mass difference increases. In addi-
tion, the tank and helium masses in the ElecPump cycle tend to
be similar to that of the battery pack. The feed system masses in
the ElecPump cycle are heavier than those of the GG cycle for all
cases because the power density of the motor is relatively poor
compared to other components such as pumps and inverter (Ta-
ble 3). Considering only the feed system mass, the ElecPump cycle
weighs at least 3.3 to 3.5 times mass needed for the GG cycle.
Thus, depending on the mass increase caused by the feed system
and mass reductions due to the battery pack, tanks, helium, and CC
propellants, the initial mass of the ElecPump cycle can be lighter
Fig. 9. Initial mass comparison of ElecPump cycle to GG cycle.
or heavier than that of the GG cycle. The most important factor
is the battery pack mass. Of all the components with that reduce
mass, the battery pack mass, relative to the GG propellant mass, is

Fig. 10. Initial mass budget for m0E P > m0G G ; m0E P = m0G G ; m0E P < m0G G ; thrust = 100 kN, p cc = 10 MPaA.
 H.-D. Kwak et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 77 (2018) 67–82
Fig. 11. Specific impulse comparison.
dramatically reduced with longer burning times. The relative mass
ratio of battery pack is 0.822 for a burning time of 300 s. When
the burning time is 1200 s, this ratio is 0.679 (down 17.4%). Con-
sequently, the ElecPump cycle MR is significantly improved by the
mass reduction of the battery pack. Even so, it is clear that the
MR of ElecPump cycle is worse than the GG cycle by 2.3 to 2.7
times. This penalty will need to be recovered by the benefit to the
specific impulse if the ElecPump cycle is to compete with the GG
cycle.
Here, velocity increment ( v), which is the most significant
quantity for the performance evaluation of each cycle, is discussed.
Neglecting atmospheric drag force and gravity drag changes with
altitude, the ideal rocket equation is given by
 v = g 0 I sp ln(1/MR)
Note that the specific impulse and mass ratio (MR) are major
concerns. Fig. 11 indicates the results for specific impulse along the
combustion chamber pressure. The thrust contribution of turbine
exhaust gas is assumed to be 1% for the GG cycle. The characteris-
tic velocity and thrust coefficient efficiencies are neglected for the
specific impulse calculation. The results show that the specific im-
pulse of the ElecPump cycle is higher than that of the GG cycle
over the entire combustion chamber pressure range. This occurs
because the ElecPump cycle does not need additional GG propel-
lant. The additional specific impulse gain of the ElecPump cycle
increases from 1.6% to 6.1% as the combustion chamber pressure
increases. As far as specific impulse is concerned, a higher com-
bustion chamber pressure is desirable for the ElecPump cycle.
Another concern is the mass ratio. Fig. 12 compares the re-
sults for relative mass ratio MREP /MRGG . Because the battery pack
mass remains as dry mass after burning terminates, the mass ra-
tios of the ElecPump cycle are higher than those of the GG cycle.
The mass ratio penalty of the ElecPump cycle increases as the
combustion chamber pressure increases at the given thrust level.
A higher combustion chamber pressure somehow reduces the mass
flow rate to the combustion chamber, while linearly increasing the
pump head rise. As a result, more pump power is required, which
requires a heavier battery pack. Therefore, when just focusing on
the mass ratio, a lower combustion chamber pressure is desirable
for reducing the mass ratio penalty for the ElecPump cycle. Ad-
ditionally, Fig. 12 indicates that a longer burning time and higher
thrust level reduce the mass ratio penalty of the ElecPump cycle.
The results above confirm the opposing effects of the combus-
tion chamber pressure on the performance of the ElecPump cycle;
a higher combustion chamber pressure is positive for the specific
77
Fig. 12. Comparison of ElecPump cycle mass ratio to GG cycle.
(47)
Fig. 13. Ratio of (Isp × ln MR−1 ) of ElecPump cycle to GG cycle.
impulse and negative for the mass ratio. Therefore, to fairly esti-
mate the  v capability for both cycles, the products of specific im-
pulse and mass ratio are compared as expressed in Eq. (47). Fig. 13
represents the ratio of (Isp × ln MR−1 ) for both cycles. When the
ratios are close to unity, the  v capabilities of the ElecPump cy-
cle are close to those of the GG cycle. These results show that
increasing combustion chamber pressure has a negative effect on
the  v capability of the ElecPump cycle. This means that the spe-
cific impulse gains do not compensate for the mass ratio penalty.
In the case of tb = 1200 s, the penalty is 8% at p cc = 3.0 MPaA,
whereas the penalty becomes 18% for p cc = 10.0 MPaA. For burn-
ing times shorter than 1200 s, the penalties become larger ranging
from 9% to 19% for 900 s, 10% to 20% for 600 s, and 11% to 25% for
300 s, respectively. Thus, a longer burning time positively affects
v capabilities. In addition, a higher thrust level provides a bonus,
but its effects are relatively limited relative to those of combus-
tion chamber pressure and burning time. From the above results,
the desirable characteristics for the ElecPump cycle, especially in
terms of  v, can be summarized as follows: the lower combustion
chamber pressure, longer burning time, and higher thrust level.
The results in this section provide general characteristics for
ElecPump cycle because the mass ratios are calculated without
considering the valves, pipelines, and structures. A practical es-
timation of the payload for the ElecPump cycle is discussed in
Section 5.3.
78 H.-D. Kwak et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 77 (2018) 67–82
Fig. 14. Fuel mass flow rate with regenerative cooling of the battery pack: thrust =
100 kN, tb = 1200 s.
Fig. 15. Fuel mass flow rate with regenerative cooling of the battery pack: thrust =
100 kN, tb = 300 s.
5.2. Battery pack
5.2.1. Coolant mass flow rate
In this section, the regenerative coolant mass flow rate for the
battery pack is estimated. As described in Section 2.3, the fuel is
used as coolant for the battery pack. Because the fuel pump power
increases proportionally to the coolant mass flow rate, the battery
pack mass also increases with the coolant mass flow rate. Figs. 14
and 15 present the coolant mass flow rate, the fuel pump mass
flow rate without regenerative cooling, and the fuel pump mass
flow rate with regenerative cooling. The results are shown for a
thrust level of 100 kN because that case consumes highest power
of all cases in this study. For the longer burning time of 1200 s,
the coolant mass flow uses from 0.25% to 0.89% of the pump flow
rate. This increases linearly with the combustion chamber pres-
sure. A higher combustion chamber pressure requires higher pump
power, which increases the coolant mass flow rate. Yet, for a burn-
ing time of 1200 s, the coolant mass flow rate is small enough
compared to the pump flow rate to ignore. When one examines
the 300 s burning time case, a different figure is observed. In this
case, the coolant mass flow ranges from 3.35% to 12.41% of the
pump flow rate, which are not negligible values. This is mainly
due to the degraded energy efficiency of the battery pack caused
by the short burning time (Fig. 6). Thus, the required pump power
Fig. 16. Battery pack mass increase due to regenerative cooling: thrust = 100 kN.
increases and the battery pack becomes heavier than that for a
longer burning time. Fig. 16 shows the percentage of battery pack
mass increase owing to the regenerative coolant mass flow. For
all cases with a 1200 s burning time, the increases in mass are
very limited: from 0.12% to 0.41%. However, for the 300 s burn-
ing time cases, the values range from 1.58% to 5.67%. For example,
when the combustion chamber pressure is 10 MPaA and the burn-
ing time is 300 s, the battery pack mass increases from 392.9 kg
to 415.3 kg, which is an increase of approximately 22.4 kg be-
cause of the regenerative cooling. Particularly for above case, the
increase comprises a considerable portion of the engine mass and
degrades the MR (by about 2.5%). Thus, with the given constraints
from the battery cell characteristics (especially the D cell in this
study), it is desirable to set a lower combustion chamber pressure
to compensate for the MR penalty caused by the regenerative cool-
ing. However, different figures could be found if one considered
another kind of battery cell.
5.2.2. Effect of battery cell optimal time on the payload
In this section, an analysis is performed to estimate the effect of
battery cell characteristics on payload. Payload ratios were calcu-
lated with respect to a hypothetical energy density increment for
the battery cell of up to 900 Wh/kg (a quite high value, consider-
ing current technology, yet one that allows for a partially objective
assessment). Fig. 17 shows the payload ratio with respect to the
battery cell energy density when tb = 1200 s and thrust = 25 kN.
The ElecPump cycle has an almost equivalent payload to that of
the GG cycle when the battery cell energy density reaches approx-
imately 450 to 500 Wh/kg. In this case, the battery pack mass is
only governed by its energy density. Thus, a higher energy density
yields a lighter battery pack, which continues to increases the pay-
load of the ElecPump cycle. In contrast, for tb = 300 s and thrust =
100 kN, a different figure is shown. Fig. 18 illustrates the payload
ratio for this case. The results show that payload ratio increases as
the energy density increases; however, it does not increase beyond
700 Wh/kg. This is because of an effect of the battery cell optimal
time (t opt ), which is defined as the ratio of the energy density to
the power density of the battery cell.
topt = δbc , E /δbc , P (48)
If the burning time is shorter than the battery cell optimal
time, the battery pack mass is governed by the power density (i.e.
power-constrained). In the opposite case, it is governed by the en-
ergy density (i.e. energy-constrained). The battery cell optimal time
 H.-D. Kwak et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 77 (2018) 67–82
Fig. 17. Payload ratio of ElecPump cycle to GG cycle as a function of the battery cell
energy density: thrust = 25 kN, tb = 1200 s.
Fig. 18. Payload ratio of ElecPump cycle to GG cycle as a function of the battery cell
energy density: thrust = 100 kN, tb = 300 s.
is 362 s when the energy density is 700 Wh/kg. Because the burn-
ing time is 300 s in this case, the battery pack mass is no longer
governed by energy density, and the power density of the battery
cell should be increased to further increase payload. To clarify the
effect of battery cell optimal time on payload, a comparative anal-
ysis was performed for two cases with different optimal times:
topt = 102.6 s and t opt = 1049.9 s. In addition to the Li-polymer
battery cell (D-cell) with t opt = 102.6 s, a Li-S battery cell was
further introduced for the case of longer optimal times. The en-
ergy density and power density of Li-S battery cell are 350 Wh/kg
and 1.2 kW/kg, respectively, and the battery cell optimal time is
1049.9 s [18]. In the comparative analysis, the energy efficiency
of each battery cell was ignored. Fig. 19 shows the normalized
battery pack mass and payload with respect to the burning time.
The battery pack mass and payload were normalized to their val-
ues at tb = topt . The battery pack mass reaches a minimum value
for both cases when the burning time is equal to the battery cell
optimal time. If the burning time is longer than the battery cell op-
timal time, the battery pack mass no longer decreases. This means
that, for a given total impulse, it is advantageous to set the burn-
ing time equal to or longer than the battery cell optimal time, to
minimize battery pack mass. From the standpoint of the payload,
additional payload improvements are expected when the burning
time is longer than the battery cell optimal time. Because the to-
79
tal impulse is fixed, a longer burning time means lower thrust. The
lower thrust reduces the mass of the components, which improves
the payload. This payload improvement is approximately 4% for a
Li-polymer case, whereas it is limited to 0.05% for the Li-S case.
The above results reveal that battery cell optimal time is one of the
major considerations for maximizing payload. With respect to the
payload, it is desirable to set the burning time at least equal to the
battery cell optimal time for a given  v and total impulse.
5.3. Payload capability estimation
In this section, the payloads capabilities of ElecPump cycle are
compared to those of GG cycle for a hypothetical LEO mission and
the KSLV-II 3rd stage mission.
5.3.1. Hypothetical LEO mission
In this section, the payloads for the ElecPump cycle and GG
cycle are compared for application in the final stage. Here, a hy-
pothetical LEO mission is considered: the overall  v of the launch
vehicle is 9300 m/s. The total  v for the lower stages is assumed
to be 4750 m/s and the additional gains or losses due to the initial
mass changes of the ElecPump cycle are ignored (see Fig. 9). Thus,
the required  v for the final stage is 4550 m/s. The total impulse
is assumed to be 30,000 kN-s.
Fig. 20 shows the payload ratio of the ElecPump to the GG
cycle. Because the total impulse is constant, the thrust levels de-
crease as burning time increases. The results show that the pay-
load of the ElecPump cycle approaches that of the GG for longer
burning times. In particular, at a low combustion chamber pres-
sure of 3.0 MPaA, the payload penalty of the ElecPump cycle is
at least 2.1% to 3.5%. For example, the payload of the ElecPump
cycle is 100 kg less than that of the GG cycle when tb = 300 s
and p cc = 3.0 MPaA. For tb = 1200 s and p cc = 3.0 MPaA, the gap
becomes approximately 60 kg. The ElecPump cycle has fewer com-
ponents (mainly valves and pipelines related to the GG) than the
GG cycle and those masses were not taken into account in the re-
sults. Thus, the dry mass of the ElecPump cycle is overestimated
and the gap further reduced by considering those masses. This re-
sult is encouraging because it demonstrates that the performance
of the ElecPump cycle (in terms of payload) can be nearly equiv-
alent to that of the GG cycle, even at current battery technology
levels (δbc , P = 6.95 kW/kg, and δbc , E = 198 Wh/kg). In contrast,
at p cc = 10.0 MPaA, the payload penalty of the ElecPump cycle
increases (at least 6.5% to 12% depending on burning time). The
payload gap for the two cycles ranges from 189 to 345 kg. This
larger gap occurs primarily because of the battery pack mass.
5.3.2. KSLV-II 3rd stage mission
In the previous section, the payload capabilities of the ElecPump
cycle were compared to those of GG cycle assuming a hypotheti-
cal LEO mission. However, those comparisons yield limited figures
because of the mass definitions made in this study (that is, the
definition of each cycle mass, in Eqs. (6) and (32)). The support
structure mass, valve and pipe mass, combustion chamber mass,
and other components masses were not taken into account, and it
is necessary to introduce a launch vehicle with well-defined mass
model in order to make a rigorous comparative analysis. Thus,
the Korea Space Launch Vehicle-II (KSLV-II), which is under de-
velopment by KARI, is used as an analysis model to reveal the
application viability of the proposed cycle. KSLV-II is designed to
carry 1500 kg of cargo into 700 km SSO with a 98.2◦ inclination
[43]. It is a three-staged launch vehicle that utilizes LOX/kerosene
GG cycle engines. In the first stage, four clustered 75-ton class en-
gines generate 2,983 kN vacuum thrust. The second stage engine
is basically same as that of the first stage but slightly modified for
the higher altitude and generates 789 kN of vacuum thrust. In the
80 H.-D. Kwak et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 77 (2018) 67–82

Fig. 19. Normalized battery pack mass and payload with respect to burning time for t opt = 102.6 s (Li-polymer, D-cell) and t opt = 1049.9 s (Li-S).

Table 4
Specifications of KSLV-II.

Parameter Value Remarks

Height 47.5 m
Staging 3 staged Series staging
Lift-off mass 199.8 t
Cargo payload 1500 kg 700 km SSO

1st stage Engines 4×75 t 4 engines clustered

Specific impulse 298.5 s Vacuum
Thrust 2983.0 kN Vacuum
Cycle Gas generator LOX/kerosene

2nd stage Engines 1×75 t

Specific impulse 315.9 s Vacuum
Thrust 789.0 kN Vacuum
Cycle Gas generator LOX/kerosene

3rd stage Engines 1×7 t

Fig. 20. Payload ratio of ElecPump cycle to GG cycle:  v = 4550 m/s, total impulse
= 30,000 kN-s.
final stage, a 7-ton class engine with 68.9 kN of vacuum thrust is
employed. The specifications of KSLV-II are listed in Table 4.
The analysis is carried out assuming that the ElecPump cycle
engine replaces the 3rd stage GG cycle engine. The mass ratios
and effective exhaust velocities of 1st and 2nd stages are fixed to
those of the original KSLV-II. The analysis procedure basically fol-
lows the description given in Section 3, but extended to the stage
mass definition. The analysis parameters for the battery pack, in-
verter, and motor are as described in Section 4. From the design
data of the KSLV-II, the combustion chamber mass and the valve
and pipe masses are predicted by scaling and an empirical formu-
lation as a function of mass flow rate, pressure, and burning time.
The structure masses are determined by the loads that they should
support. Other component masses that are not affected by above
parameters, such as avionics, are assumed to be a constant value
from the design data of 3rd stage. Because many parameters for
Specific impulse 326.8 s Vacuum
Thrust 68.9 kN Vacuum
Cycle Gas generator LOX/kerosene
this analysis are the proprietary data of KARI, a detailed descrip-
tion is not given here.
Table 5 contains the case study results of ElecPump cycle for
the 3rd stage of the KSLV-II. Some proprietary data is omitted. The
first column of data shows the original GG cycle specifications. The
combustion chamber pressure and specific impulse are 7.0 MPaA
and 326.8 s, respectively. The lift-off mass is 199,800 kg and the
total  v for a 1500 kg cargo payload is 10,660.0 m/s. The second
column gives the specifications of launcher when the ElecPump
cycle is substituted for the GG cycle in the 3rd stage engine. In
this case, the thrust, burning time, and combustion chamber are
identical to those of the GG cycle. Compared to the GG cycle, the
specific impulse is improved by 4.4% while the lift-off mass wors-
ened by 0.03%. The increased lift-off mass also degrades the MR of
the launcher. This is mainly because the mass of the battery pack
is much heavier than that of the GG driving propellant in the GG
cycle. As a result, despite the benefit of the specific impulse, the
total  v is less than that of the GG cycle engine, which leads to a
cargo payload penalty of 10.5%.
 H.-D. Kwak et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 77 (2018) 67–82 81

Table 5
Cargo payloads comparison of GG and ElecPump cycles for the KSLV-II 3rd stage application (SSO mission).

Parameter GG cycle ElecPump cycle Remarks

Vacuum thrust 68.9 68.9 (–) 68.9 (–) kN
Burning time 501.6 501.6 (–) 501.6 (–) s
CC pressure, p cc 7.0 7.0 (–) 4.0 (42.9%↓) MPaA
Specific impulse 326.8 341.3 (4.4%↑) 340.6 (4.2%↑) s
Lift-off mass 199800 199854 (0.03%↑) 199643 (0.08%↓) kg

1st stage MR Proprietary data 0.359 0.358 Note

2nd stage MR Proprietary data 0.343 0.340 Note
3rd stage MR Proprietary data 0.260 0.248 Note

1st stage  v Proprietary data 2886.8 2892.1 m/s

2nd stage  v Proprietary data 3203.6 3225.0 m/s
3rd stage  v Proprietary data 4435.3 4590.4 m/s
Total  v Proprietary data 1.3%↓ 0.4%↑ m/s

Equivalent cargo payload 1500 1343 (10.5%↓) 1555 (3.7%↑) kg

Note
– Each stage MR is defined by final mass over initial mass.
– For example, 1st stage MR is (1st stage dry mass + 2nd stage mass + 3rd stage mass + payload)/(lift-off mass).

The authors now seek another option to improve the cargo pay-
load. In the above analysis, the GG cycle and the ElecPump cycle
are compared under identical operating conditions for fair eval-
uation. However, in this case study, it is possible to change the
parameters to explore the viability of the ElecPump cycle. In this
exploration, the thrust level and burning time are fixed as those
of the GG cycle engine to stick with the original mission profile
of the KSLV-II. In Section 5.1, it is shown that a lower combus-
tion pressure is helpful not only for reducing the initial mass but
also for improving mass ratio. Thus, the result for a lower combus-
tion pressure is added to the third column of Table 5. The third
column shows the result when the combustion chamber pressure
is 4.0 MPaA. Owing to the lower combustion chamber pressure,
the specific impulse benefit is reduced by 4.2%, which is slightly
less than the 4.4% of the 7.0 MPaA case. However, the lift-off
mass is less than that of GG cycle and the MRs of each stage are
also improved compared to those of the 7.0 MPaA ElecPump cy-
cle case. Much of this benefit comes from the lighter battery pack.
In this case, the specific impulse gain is enough to remedy the
penalty of the MRs when compared to the GG cycle, and a higher
 v is acquired. Consequently, the cargo payload for the 4.0 MPaA
ElecPump cycle is increased by 3.7% (55 kg) with respect to the
original cargo payload of 1500 kg for the GG cycle. Additionally,
with more flexibility in the parameters, other than just those for
the combustion chamber pressure, an optimization for maximiz-
ing cargo payload could be conducted. However, such efforts are
beyond the focus of this study, and remain as further research.
As illustrated in Fig. 20, the payload of the ElecPump cycle
would be less than that of the GG cycle (by a few percent) when
one considers a lower combustion chamber pressure. Eventually
such an analysis becomes a trade-off problem with respect to
launch costs, i.e., cost per unit payload. The authors believe that
the ElecPump cycle is still an attractive option because the pro-
posed cycle is much simpler than the GG cycle.
6. Conclusions
This study assessed the performance of the ElecPump cycle,
focusing on its masses and payloads, compared to a GG cycle.
The parameters were thrust level, burning time, and combustion
chamber pressure. The viability of the ElecPump cycle engine was
explored and the following conclusions can be drawn.
(1) Considering the present technological maturity of electric mo-
tor and the historical data of turbopump power, the reachable
maximum thrust level for the proposed cycle configuration is
to be 100 kN.
(2) The screening test result of the battery cells demonstrate that
Li-polymer types are more suitable for the ElecPump cycle be-
cause of their higher discharge rate. In addition, the necessity
of regenerative cooling for the battery pack is shown.
(3) The mass definitions were derived for the GG cycle and the
ElecPump cycle. A comparative study yields that i) the initial
mass of the ElecPump cycle could be lighter than that of the
GG cycle for longer burning times; ii) the specific impulse of
the ElecPump is improved by 1.6% to 6.1%; iii) a lower p cc ,
longer tb , and higher thrust level compensate for the mass ra-
tio penalty.
(4) For the battery pack with the D cell selected in this study, the
regenerative cooling additionally increases the battery pack
mass from 0.12% to 0.41% for tb = 1200 s and, from 1.58% to
5.67% for tb = 300 s in the maximum thrust case analysis of
100 kN.
(5) With respect to the effect of battery cell optimal time on pay-
load, it is desirable for burning time to be at least equal to the
optimal time to increase the payload.
(6) Under the same operating conditions for both cycles, the hypo-
thetical LEO mission analysis revealed that the ElecPump cycle
has a payload capability that is only 2.1% to 3.1% less than that
of the GG cycle for the p cc = 3.0 MPaA case.
(7) For the KSLV-II mission, given the original operating condi-
tions, the cargo payload is worse by 10.5% when the ElecPump
cycle is employed for the 3rd stage engine. However, the cargo
payload capability is improved by 3.7% when the combustion
chamber pressure is adjusted to 4.0 MPaA.
The authors have explored the viability of the ElecPump cycle
engine using the results described so far. Despite its advantages
and disadvantages, the use of the ElecPump cycle eventually be-
comes a trade-off problem for the designer. The outcomes in this
paper are encouraging because the characteristics of electric mo-
tors and batteries used in this study were strictly restricted to
current technologies. The ElecPump cycle is quite an attractive al-
ternative for low thrust level rocket engines mainly owing to its
simplicity, which saves costs and cuts the cost per unit payload.
Finally, there are several issues for further studies. As briefly
mentioned in Section 2.2, a dual motor configuration would greatly
expand the flexibility of the engine because it can introduce a
larger operating range by adjusting the O/F ratio, combustion pres-
sure, and thrust level. This means that the ElecPump cycle can
accommodate the various mission requirements. In addition, one
82 H.-D. Kwak et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 77 (2018) 67–82
can consider utilizing the thermal losses of the motor and bat-
tery pack. For the cycles using cryogenic propellants, these thermal
losses can be the heat source for vaporizing the propellant, and
the vaporized propellant can be utilized as the pressurizing gas for
the propellant tanks. This would lead to lighter helium and helium
tank masses and might contribute to the simplicity of the system.
Conflict of interest statement
There is no conflict of interest.
References
[1] G. Johnsson, M. Bigert, Development of small centrifugal pumps for an electric
propellant pump system, Acta Astronaut. 21 (1990) 429–438.
[2] S.J. Schneider, Low thrust chemical rocket technology, in: 43rd Congress of Int.
Astronautical Federation, 1992, IAF Paper 92-0669.
[3] A. Datta, W. Johnson, Powerplant design and performance analysis of a manned
all-electric helicopter, J. Propuls. Power 30 (2014) 490–505.
[4] Y. Miyairi, C.A. Perullo, D.N. Mavris, A parametric environment for weight and
sizing prediction of motor/generator for hybrid electric propulsion, in: 51st
AIAA/SAE/ASEE Jt. Propuls. Conference, AIAA Propuls. and Energy Forum, 2015,
AIAA-2015-3887.
[5] C. Friedrich, P.A. Robertson, Hybrid-electric propulsion for aircraft, J. Aircr. 52
(2015) 176–189.
[6] C.A. Perullo, D.R. Trawick, D.N. Mavris, Assessment of engine and vehicle per-
formance using integrated hybrid-electric propulsion models, J. Propuls. Power
32 (2016) 1305–1314.
[7] C.E.D. Riboldi, F. Gualdoni, An integrated approach to the preliminary weight
sizing of small electric aircraft, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 58 (2016) 134–149.
[8] G. Avanzini, E.L. de Angelis, F. Giulietti, Optimal performance and sizing of a
battery-powered aircraft, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 59 (2016) 132–144.
[9] M. Tyan, N.V. Nguyen, S. Kim, J.W. Lee, Comprehensive preliminary sizing/resiz-
ing method for a fixed wing VTOL electric UAV, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 71 (2017)
30–41.
[10] G. Cinar, D.N. Mavris, M. Ementh, A. Schneegans, C. Riediger, Y. Fefermann,
A. Isikveren, Sizing, integration and performance evaluation of hybrid electric
propulsion subsystem architectures, in: 55th AIAA Aerosp. Sciences Meeting,
AIAA SciTech Forum, 2017, AIAA-2017-1183.
[11] J. Gladin, D. Trawick, C. Peruulo, J.C.M. Tai, D.N. Mavris, Modeling and de-
sign of a partially electric distributed aircraft propulsion system with GT-HEAT,
in: 55th AIAA Aerosp. Sciences Meeting, AIAA SciTech Forum, 2017, AIAA-
2017-1924.
[12] T.M. Abel, T.A. Velez, Electrical Drive System for Rocket Engine Propellant
Pumps, US Patent, Registration No. 0647306, 2002.
[13] G. Raymond, Device for Powering the Pump of a Rocket Engine Using an Inertia
Wheel, US Patent, Registration No. 8632319 B2, 2014.
[14] Patrick R.E. Bahn, Rocket Engine Systems, US Patent, Registration No. 9677503
B2, 2017.
[15] L. Casalino, D. Pastrone, Optimization of a hybrid rocket upper stage with elec-
tric pump feed system, in: 46th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Jt. Propuls. Conference &
Exhib., 2010, AIAA-2010-6954.
[16] L. Galfetti, F. Nasuti, D. Pastrone, A.M. Russo, An Italian network to improve
hybrid rocket performance: strategy and results, Acta Astronaut. 96 (2014)
246–260.
[17] N. Soldà, D. Lentini, Opportunities for a liquid rocket feed system based on
electric pumps, J. Propuls. Power 24 (2008) 1340–1346.
[18] P.A. Pavlov Rachov, H. Tacca, D. Lentini, Electric feed systems for liquid-
propellant rockets, J. Propuls. Power 29 (2013) 1171–1180.
[19] D. Spiller, A. Stabile, D. Lentini, Design and testing of a demonstrator electric-
pump feed system for liquid propellant rocket engines, AIDAA J. Aerosp. Sci.
Technol. Syst. (Aerotecnica Missili & Spazio) 92 (2013) 123–130.
[20] D. Vaughan, B. Nakazono, A. London, A. Mehra, Technology development of
an electrically driven pump fed storable liquid bi-propellant for a Mars ascent
vehicle, in: 68th Intl. Astronautical Congress, IAC, 2017, IAC-17-C4.3.8.
[21] A. Dibrivny, A. Prokpchuk, V. Shul’ga, A. Kukhta, Analytical estimation of elec-
tropump supply system application reasonability for liquid rocket engines, in:
Proc. of Space Propuls, 2016, SP2016-3124965.
[22] RocketLab, http://www.rocketlabusa.com, 2017 (Accessed 24 October 2017).
[23] H.D. Kwak, D.J. Kim, J. Kim, H.G. Lee, C.H. Choi, E. Jeong, Liquid Rocket En-
gine Using Electrically Driven Pump, Republic of Korea Patent, Registration No.
10-1682418, 2017.
[24] H.D. Kwak, S.M. Jeon, J. Kim, Development of inter-propellant seal for turbop-
ump, in: Proc. of ASIATRIB Intl. Conference, 2006, pp. 677–678.
[25] L. Dlugiewicz, J. Kolowrotkiewicz, W. Szelag, B. Slusarek, Permanent magnet
synchronous motor to drive propellant pump, in: IEEE Int. Symp. on Power
Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion, 2012, pp. 20–22.
[26] B. Jankowski, D. Kapelski, M. Karbowiak, M. Przybylski, B. Slusarek, Influence
of cryogenic temperature on magnetic properties of soft magnetic composites,
Powder Metall. (ISSN 0032-5899) 57 (2014) 155–160.
[27] V. Petrucha, P. Ripka, Rotational speed measurement and angular position ref-
erence for a cryogenic propellant electric pump, J. Electr. Eng. (ISSN 1335-3632)
66 (2015) 199–202.
[28] D. Kapelski, B. Jankowski, M. Przybylski, B. Slusarek, The influence of cryogenic
temperatures on the characteristics of a brushless motor, Tech. T. Electrical
Eng. (Czasopismo Techniczne Elektrotechnika Zeszyt) (ISSN 1897-6301) 1-E-8
(2015) 281–289.
[29] Z. Kolondzovski, A. Arkkio, J. Larjola, P. Sallinen, Power limits of high-speed
permanent-magnet electrical machines for compressor applications, IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers. 26 (2011) 73–82.
[30] A. Sobin, W. Bissell, Turbopump Systems for Liquid Rocket Engines, NASA
SP-8107, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, USA, 1974.
[31] V. Qvanov , A . Kaxkarov , E. Romasenko, L . Tolstikov , Turbonasos-
nye agregaty RD konstrukcii HPO Energomax , Konversi v
maxinostroenii (ISSN 0869-6772) (2006) 15–21.
[32] E.H. Jeong, P.G. Park, J.H. Kim, Performance test of the 30-ton class liquid rocket
engine turbopump turbine, J. Korean Soc. Propuls. Eng. 12 (2008) 1–6.
[33] E.H. Jeong, H.G. Lee, P.G. Park, H.D. Kwak, J. Kim, Investigation on the perfor-
mance characteristics of the 75 ton class turbopump turbine, J. Korean Soc.
Propuls. Eng. 14 (2010) 65–71.
[34] H.D. Kwak, D.J. Kim, J.S. Kim, J. Kim, J.G. Noh, P.G. Park, J.H. Bae, J.H. Shin, S.H.
Yoon, H. Lee, Performance test of a 7 tonf liquid rocket engine turbopump,
J. Korean Soc. Propuls. Eng. 19 (2015) 65–72.
[35] Z. Kolondzovski, Determination of critical thermal operations for high-speed
permanent magnet electrical machines, J. Comput. Math. Electrical Electron
Eng. (COMPEL) 27 (2008) 720–727.
[36] Z. Kolondzovski, A. Belahcen, A. Arikkio, Comparative thermal analysis of dif-
ferent rotor types for a high-speed permanent electrical machine, IET Electric
Power Appl. 3 (2009) 279–288.
[37] P. Frank DeWitt, P. David, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, fourth edn.,
Wiley, New York, 2000.
[38] H. Douglass, H. Schmidt, L. Levinson, Liquid Propellant Gas Generators, NASA
SP-8081, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, USA, 1972.
[39] G.P. Sutton, O. Biblarz, Rocket Propulsion Elements, eighth edn., Wiley, New
York, 2010.
[40] S.B. Macaluso, H.W. Douglass, Liquid Rocket Engine Turbines, NASA SP-8110
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, USA, 1974.
[41] K.P. Duffy, Electric motor considerations for non-cryogenic hybrid electric and
turboelectric propulsion, in: 51st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Jt. Propuls. Conference
& Exhib., 2015, AIAA-2015-3891.
[42] Glenn Research Center, NASA, http://cearun.grc.nasa.gov, 2017 (Accessed 24 Oc-
tober 2017).
[43] Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI), http://www.kari.re.kr, 2018 (Ac-
cessed 6 February 2018).