AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum 10.2514/6.

2019-4009
19-22 August 2019, Indianapolis, IN
AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2019 Forum

Low Pressure Ignition Testing of a Hybrid SmallSat Motor

Elizabeth T. Jens∗ , Ashley C. Karp† , Kyle Wiliams‡ , Barry Nakazono§ , Jason Rabinovitch¶
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 91109

David Dyrda‖ , Flora Mechentel∗∗

Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305

A Poly[Methyl MethAcrylate] (PMMA) and Gaseous Oxygen (GOx) hybrid motor was
tested under a flight-like (low pressure) environment, maturing the technology to Technology
Readiness Level (TRL) 5. The goal of this testing was to mature a restartable hybrid motor with
an Isp greater than 300 s and a design that could provide 800 m/s of ∆V to a 25 kg wet spacecraft,
which could support the science needs of future interplanetary SmallSat missions. The hybrid
propulsion system tested here is compact enough to fit within 12U, but flexible enough to be
Downloaded by Jason Rabinovitch on August 17, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-4009

scaled to meet different mission requirements. The chosen propellant combination is non-
toxic, facilitating its integration as a secondary payload. A flight-like motor was designed,
built and tested. An existing vacuum chamber at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) was
brought back online and adapted to test the motor. A new feed system was also assembled
with a flight-quality main oxidizer valve. The reference mission, Mars orbit insertion and
Phobos/Deimos flybys, suggested 8 to 12 maneuvers may be needed, leading to the selection of
24 motor restarts to demonstrate a factor of two margin. These burns are required to complete
trajectory correction maneuvers, orbit insertion, and post-insertion maneuvers. As a result, 24
ignitions were demonstrated using two different igniter technologies in a vacuum environment.

Nomenclature
∆m f Total mass of fuel burned [g]
mÛ ox Oxidizer mass flow rate [g/s]
Isp Specific impulse [s]

tb Total burn time [s]

ABS Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene
ESPA EELV Secondary Payload Adapter

GOx Gaseous Oxygen

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory
PMMA Poly(Methyl MethAcrylate)
TRL Technology Readiness Level

∗ PropulsionEngineer, JPL Propulsion and Fluid Flight Systems, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 125-211, AIAA Senior Member.
† Technologist,
JPL Propulsion and Fluid Flight Systems, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 125-211, AIAA Senior Member.
‡ Technology Lead, Propulsion and Fluid Systems Services Support, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 233-103.
§ Systems Engineer, JPL Propulsion and Fluid Flight Systems, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 125-211.
¶ Mechanical Engineer, Entry, Descent, & Landing and Formulation Group, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S: T1708-112, AIAA Senior Member.
‖ PhD Candidate, 496 Lomita Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, AIAA Member.
∗∗ PhD Candidate, 496 Lomita Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, AIAA Member.

Copyright © 2019 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

The U.S. Government has a royalty-free license to exercise all rights under the copyright claimed herein for Governmental purposes. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.
 I. Introduction
The success of terrestrial CubeSats has lead to increasing interest in utilizing CubeSat components and systems for
small interplanetary missions. Interplanetary missions require propulsion systems for trajectory correction maneuvers,
reaction wheel unloading, and ideally, large maneuvers, like orbit insertion. In 2018, the first interplanetary CubeSats
with propulsion were launched. Two 6U CubeSats, known as Mars Cube One (MarCO), were launched to Mars on
the 5th May, 2018 as a secondary payload for the InSight mission. Each MarCO propulsion system has an Isp of
approximately 40 s to deliver a total ∆V of 68.6 m/s [1]. This level of ∆V is approximately an order of magnitude too
low for a Martian orbit insertion maneuver, and thus the MarCO spacecraft were only used to flyby Mars. The work
described in this paper support development of a propulsion system that enables interplanetary CubeSats to conduct ∆V
intensive science missions.
A hybrid propulsion system using PMMA and gaseous oxygen has been designed to deliver orbit insertion ∆V to
spacecraft ranging in scale from a 12U CubeSat to an ESPA-class SmallSat. References [2] and [3] provide details of
the design of this system. The notional mission profile for this system required 8 to 12 ignitions of the hybrid motor.
Thus, a reliable igniter capable of re-lighting the hybrid in the vacuum of space had to be identified and demonstrated.
Pyrotechnic igniters, used extensively on hybrid motors, are typically single-use and thus are not suitable for this
Downloaded by Jason Rabinovitch on August 17, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-4009

application. Two candidate ignition systems, a laser igniter [4] and an augmented spark igniter [5], were identified
for testing in a low pressure environment. The goal of this testing was to demonstrate 2 times the required number of
mission ignitions, in this case 24 successful ignitions, in a low pressure environment less than 30 mTorr, and thereby
increase the TRL of the system.

II. Facility Overview

A vacuum chamber at JPL was re-purposed to demonstrate hybrid ignition under low pressure. It was designed for
Voyager testing in the 1970’s and last used for life testing of MONARC-5 thrusters for Soil Moisture Active Passive
(SMAP) [6]. The original system used two pairs of Kinney vacuum pumps and Aerzen blowers (redundant).
Only one side of the system was used for these short duration tests. The chamber is capable of achieving millitorr
level vacuum before rocket ignition and maintaining less than 1.1 Torr for steady-state thrust levels less than 5 N. The
thrust level of the hybrid rocket motor described in this paper is an order of magnitude higher than this. Therefore, the
test durations were limited to approximately 3 seconds to avoid over-stressing or damaging the pumps.
The original control system for the vacuum chamber, shown in Figure 1, is still operational and was used for all tests
discussed in this paper. This panel operates the chamber pumps, blowers, and the water chiller for the system.
The vacuum facility was modified for hybrid motor testing in 2018. Additional feedlines and pass-throughs were
added to deliver gaseous oxygen, methane, and nitrogen into the vacuum chamber. The design of these feedlines is very
similar to the atmospheric pressure hybrid motor test facility described in Ref. [7] and [8]. A flight-ready valve was
used for the main oxidizer run valve. This valve is a modified version of a COTS valve from Moog Inc. It was modified
for oxygen service in 2018 and successfully used with oxygen for all tests discussed in this paper. The valve has a total
mass of 15 g and a small form-factor, see Figure 2, making it well suited to a SmallSat propulsion system. The feedlines
installed inside the vacuum chamber, including the main oxygen valve, are shown in Figure 3.
A LabVIEW data acquisition system collected system pressure, chamber pressure, differential pressure across a
venturi, and thermocouple measurements on the rocket body. The vacuum chamber pressure was monitored via a digital
gauge, shown in Figure 1, and recorded manually. A vacuum-compatible camera and GoPros were installed inside the
chamber to provide real-time monitoring and recordings of the motor under test.

A. Test sequence
The hybrid motor is assembled and installed in the vacuum chamber, as shown in Figure 3. If the laser ignition
system is being used, then the laser is installed and alignment is verified. Otherwise, the torch ignition lines are
connected. The LabVIEW system and the viewing camera are switched on to ensure that all equipment is operating
nominally. GoPro cameras are installed in the chamber with remote operation enabled. The chiller is switched on to
maintain blower and pump temperatures for extended operation. These temperatures are monitored indirectly via the
chiller return temperature using the vacuum control panel, Figure 1. The vacuum chamber door is closed and locked.
The pump is then switched on to start to pull vacuum through the pump plumbing and the vacuum chamber. When
pressures below 50 Torr are achieved in the chamber, the blower is switched on. The hybrid motor feedlines are loaded
with methane, oxygen and nitrogen gas. Note that the nitrogen gas purge is not used under nominal operations, it is
loaded in the system only in case of an anomaly.

2
 Shop Air
Supply

Nitrogen Backfill Vacuum Chiller Control

Panel Gauge Panel
Downloaded by Jason Rabinovitch on August 17, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-4009

Vacuum Control
Panel

Fig. 1 Original vacuum control panel at JPL.

After the vacuum chamber pressure decreases below 30 mTorr, the ignition sequence is initiated. The ignition
sequence times can be changed between tests, but are typically kept constant. One of the goals of the laser ignition
testing was to determine the power on time required for the laser to ignite the system, so that parameter was varied
between tests. The nominal sequence filled the line with oxygen up to the main oxidizer valve (shown in Figure 3), turned
on the igniter for a given time, opened the main oxygen valve open for the test run time, then closed the main oxidizer
valve. The nitrogen gas purge was not required for any of the ignitions discussed in this paper. At the conclusion of the
set of ignitions corresponding to a single test, the vacuum chamber was then unlocked and back-filled with nitrogen gas
to return to ambient pressure.

B. Torch Igniter
The first set of tests used an augmented spark bi-propellant torch as the ignition system. Gaseous methane is mixed
with gaseous oxygen and ignited via a spark plug. The methane is swirl injected downstream of the spark plug to
maximize residence time, cool the chamber wall, and minimize soot accumulation on the spark plug. The oxygen is
injected axially down the center of the igniter. This torch was used for numerous ambient pressure tests. The design of
the torch and the test results are discussed in Ref. [3] and [5]. Such ignition systems have seen extensive use on liquid
bi-propellant engines [9], but have only recently been adopted on hybrid rocket motors [5, 10, 11]. The torch used
for these tests was a ground-weight torch with accommodation for diagnostic equipment (pressure transducers). It is
intended that this system would be significantly light-weighted if it were to be used for flight. The flight components for
the torch igniter are identified in Figure 4. Note that redundant valves, or alternatively valves with redundant seats, are
incorporated to be compliant with range safety requirements.
The ignition sequence for the torch is as described in the previous section with a few additional sub-steps. The torch
oxygen supply is opened at the same time that the spark plug is powered. The spark plug is powered for a total of 700
ms then switched off. Methane flow commences 50 ms after the spark plug is ignited and flows for 700 ms. The main
oxygen flow is initiated 50 ms after methane is provided to the igniter. Methane is then shut off and 100 ms later the
igniter oxygen is shut off. The programmed burn time for each ignition corresponds to the amount of time that the
main oxygen flow is provided to the motor. All of the torch tests described here used the same programmed ignition
times. The timing for this sequence is taken from the work described in Ref. [5] for this ground-weight system, but it
is expected that the timing would be refined for the flight design. The hybrid motor hot-fire durations for the torch
ignitions were all 3 s, with the exception of the final test which was increased to 5 s.

3
 Fig. 2 Lightweight oxygen compatible valve developed for use with the SmallSat hybrid motor (quarter included
for scale).
Downloaded by Jason Rabinovitch on August 17, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-4009

Fig. 3 Internal vacuum chamber set-up with hybrid motor installed and torch igniter (left), laser igniter (right).

C. Laser Igniter
The hybrid motor laser igniter was designed by researchers at Stanford University [4, 12] and transported to JPL for
testing. The laser igniter is comprised of two components: the laser system and a compatible fuel target. The laser
system gets attached to the front end of the motor. This system combines a 16 W, 1064 nm near-IR diode laser with
a focusing lens assembly and a pressure-sealed window, all mounted on a copper platform which doubles as a heat
sink. This device produces a well-confined laser beam that travels through the laser window and into the motor where it
strikes the surface of a compatible fuel, which is the second component of the igniter. Fuel compatibility is determined
by its thermal decomposition mechanism, with soot forming fuels enabling the specific ignition mechanism used during
these tests [4]. For this second round of vacuum testing, a portion of the fuel grain near the pre-combustion chamber
was replaced with blackened ABS and the laser was oriented to this location. Note that the implementation of the flight
laser is mechanically much less complex than the torch. Instead of the numerous components shown in the red dashed
box of Figure 4, the laser would be a single packaged design that would be incorporated into the fore end of the motor.
The ignition timing was varied for the laser test in order to understand the capability of the igniter. A summary of all
of tested laser ignition times is provided in the Appendix, see Table 3.

III. Test Results

A summary of the test data is provided in Table 1. The test numbers listed are used to identify the experiments
relative to previous campaigns at JPL described in Ref. [3] and [13]. Test 75 is an atmospheric test with the flight-scale
motor. It is included here primarily as a comparison point to the low pressure test results in the vacuum chamber. Note
that the burn times listed are the pre-programmed burn times corresponding to the time during which oxidizer is supplied
to the hybrid motor, and are therefore not measured quantities, or adjusted for ignition delays. The mass of fuel burned is

4
Downloaded by Jason Rabinovitch on August 17, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-4009

Fig. 4 SmallSat in-space hybrid propulsion system feedline components. The torch igniter components are
identified as those within the dashed red box.

directly measured as the difference in fuel mass before and after the test. The oxidizer mass flow rate is measured using
a venturi and differential pressure transducer. All of the torch ignition tests were successful. The laser ignition timing
was varied to explore the limits of this igniter under low pressure conditions. Of the 29 ignition attempts with the laser,
24 were successful. The reasons for this are discussed in further detail in the companion laser design paper of Ref. [14].

Table 1 Summary of vacuum testing at JPL. An ambient test is also included for comparison.

Test Igniter Ambient Pressure Number of Ignitions Fuel


m f initial tb ∆m f mÛ ox
[-] [-] [-] [Ignition/Attempt] [-] [g] [s] [g] [g/s]
75 Torch Atmospheric 1/1 PMMA 2420 20 98 9.2
76 Torch <30 mTorr 24/24 PMMA 2415 73 372 6.6
PMMA 2285
78 Laser <30 mTorr 24/29 77 226 6.7
ABS 146

The combustion chamber pressure profiles for tests 76 and 78 are provided in Figure 5. All successful ignitions
showed repeatable and stable combustion results. The combustion chamber pressure was observed to increase with time,
this was as expected from the known ballistics of this propellant combination and motor design [13]. The increase in
combustion chamber pressure is due to an increase in fuel burn rate as the fuel port diameter increases. The chamber

5
 pressure was observed to be stable, with oscillations less than ±5% of the mean pressure. The shock diamonds visible in
the motor plume, see Figure 6 as an example, were also observed to be consistent and stable.
Downloaded by Jason Rabinovitch on August 17, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-4009

(a) Test 76- Torch

(b) Test 78- Laser

Fig. 5 Unfiltered motor chamber pressure data versus time for the 24 low pressure environment ignitions of
test 76 (torch) and the 29 ignition attempts of Test 78 (laser). Note that the data for the ignitions is stitched
together to remove the time between ignitions.

The ignition transients are not compared between the ambient test and the vacuum tests as the feedline lengths
downstream of the control valves, valve response times, and propellant mass flow rates are not equivalent. A direct
comparison was possible between the two vacuum tests however, since the valve response times are identical and the
measured mass flow rates are within 1.5% of each other. The ignition delays are investigated using the combustion
chamber pressure. Chamber pressure data for 3 s hot-fire durations using each ignition method are overlaid and shown
in Figure 7. Note that for the tests presented, both igniters used 50 ms delay between the opening of the main oxidizer
valve and the igniter firing (for the torch this corresponds to the point in time that methane is flowing). It can be seen
from the results of the figure that the torch igniter consistently produced shorter ignition delays. Ignition was typically
approximately 700 ms faster with the torch than with the laser. Some additional ignition delay is to be expected with the
laser, since the torch injects hot gas into the motor which helps to minimize fill time delays and introduces significant
energy into the combustion chamber. However, the gases used by the torch are expendables which must be budgeted.

6
 Fig. 6 Representative test image during Test 76 in the vacuum chamber.
Downloaded by Jason Rabinovitch on August 17, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-4009

For these tests, the laser used approximately 4.7 extra grams of the main line oxygen to ignite, however the torch used
approximately 0.45 g of igniter oxygen and 0.14 g of methane (700 ms of methane and 850 ms of igniter oxygen flow
per ignition). Further testing with flight-like igniters are needed to fully quantify which ignition system is the most
efficient in terms of the total wet mass budget.

(a) Ignition 1 (b) Ignition 2

(c) Ignition 5 (d) Ignition 8

Fig. 7 Overlaid unfiltered motor chamber pressure data versus time for various successful low pressure
ignitions. Black data is for Test 76 (torch). Cardinal data is for Test 78 (laser). Note that data is aligned to show
relative ignition delays, with each ignition delay shown in blue.

The longer ignition delays of the laser igniter hot-fires resulted in less equivalent burn time and therefore less total

7
 fuel burned. Since combustion chamber pressure increases with burn time, it is to be expected that successive laser
hot-fires produced lower chamber pressures than the torch equivalent test as was observed in the results of Figure 5 and
7.

IV. Discussion
Representative images of fuel grains after testing are provided in Figure 8. Fuel from an ambient test, Test 75, and a
test inside the vacuum chamber, Test 76, are shown. Both of these tests used PMMA fuel from the same vendor, with the
same internal motor configuration. However, the structure of the fuel grains at the conclusion of testing is very different,
particularly at the aft end. Bubbles can be seen inside the fuel grain after the vacuum chamber tests. This bubbling was
observed in the fuel grains for both Test 76 and Test 78, but was not seen in any of the ambient pressure fuel grains. It
appears that enough heat is soaking into the sub-surface region of the polymer, causing it to break down into volatiles
that remain trapped in the matrix, forming the observed bubbles near the aft end of the grain. It is perhaps not surprising
this is only observed at the aft end, since the aft end of the motor is significantly hotter than the fore end. The fact that
these large bubbles are only seen in the vacuum tests is likely due to the absence of convective cooling on the inside of
the motor at the conclusion of the test due to a lack of nitrogen purge and the absence of ambient pressure inside the
Downloaded by Jason Rabinovitch on August 17, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-4009

motor with the vacuum chamber running. Future work could investigate whether the addition of carbon black to the
PMMA might reduce the penetration depth of radiative heat transfer into the grain and thereby also reduce this effect.

Test 76 Aft End Test 75

Fore End

Fig. 8 Fuel grain images after testing at ambient external pressure (Test 75) and at low external pressure (Test
76). Note that the top view shown is looking down on the aft end of the fuel grains.

A. Ignition Trade
The two sets of vacuum tests made it possible to compare the ignition options: the baseline bi-propellant torch and a
laser ignition system. The laser system traded very favorably, with its major drawback being a longer ignition delay. As
discussed earlier, the average ignition delay of the laser system is approximately 700 ms longer than the spark igniter.

8
 However, this is something that could be accounted for in the design process. The tests described here used ground
weight components for both options, so further work is expected to light-weight each option. However, it is anticipated
that the dry mass of the laser system is would be roughly 60% of the torch system. The torch system currently uses a
proportionally controlled valve based on a large blow down ratio in the methane tank. As the design progressed, it was
found that this complex valve may not be needed as a 2:1 blow down ratio looks reasonable. Therefore, an opportunity
exists to further reduce the mass of the torch system. The expendables in the laser system have not been optimized at
this time, since the design utilizes the main oxidizer flow for the igniter. An additional valve could be utilized to reduce
the extra oxidizer substantially. However, the threshold at which the system will still ignite has not been investigated at
this time.

Table 2 Comparison between the tested ignition systems.

Trade Torch Laser

Dry Mass High Low
Power 105 Ws 62 Ws
Downloaded by Jason Rabinovitch on August 17, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-4009

Ignition Transient Baseline +700 ms

Expendables 8.0 g 56.4 g
Complexity High Medium

V. Conclusions
A hybrid propulsion system capable of delivering orbit insertion ∆V to spacecraft ranging in scale from a CubeSat
to an ESPA-class SmallSat has been designed over the past four years. Two potential igniter designs were identified
for this system: a laser igniter designed at Stanford [4] and an augmented spark igniter [5]. A prototype hybrid motor
was built and tested with each of these igniters in a relevant environment, bringing this system to TRL 5. An existing
vacuum chamber at JPL was brought back online for this testing. 24 successful ignitions were achieved with each igniter
at ambient pressures less than 30 mTorr. This corresponded to a qualification margin of twice the maximum expected
number of ignitions, demonstrated under low pressure conditions.

9
 VI. Appendix

Table 3 Test 78 vacuum levels and laser on times.

Station 6 Station 5
Test Number Before Test After Test Before Test Laser on Time Ignition Status Ignition Delay Run Time
[−] [mTorr] [mTorr] [mTorr] [ms] [−] [ms] [s]
1 9 9 12 500 no ignition 50 3
2 9 860 12 500 no ignition 50 3
3 9 920 12 1000 ignition 50 3
4 11 950 14 1000 ignition 50 3
5 13 930 16 1000 ignition 50 3
6 13 920 15 1000 ignition 50 3
7 13 950 16 1000 ignition 50 3
Downloaded by Jason Rabinovitch on August 17, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-4009

8 13 960 15 800 ignition 50 3

9 14 980 16 600 ignition 50 3
10 14 980 16 400 ignition 50 3
11 14 980 16 200 ignition 50 3
12 14 980 16 100 ignition 50 3
13 14 880 16 0 no ignition 50 3
14 13 870 15 50 no ignition 50 3
15 12 960 14 50 ignition 0 3
16 12 960 14 1000 ignition 50 3
17 13 960 15 50 ignition 0 3
18 14 880 15 50 no ignition 0 3
19 12 950 14 200 ignition 0 3
20 13 970 15 200 ignition 0 3
21 14 1.30 Torr 16 200 ignition 0 4
22 14 1.43 Torr 16 200 ignition 0 4
23 14 990 16 200 ignition 0 3
24 14 1.05 Torr 16 200 ignition 0 3
25 14 1.00 Torr 16 200 ignition 0 3
26 14 1.03 Torr 16 200 ignition 0 3
27 14 1.01 Torr 16 200 ignition 0 3
28 14 990 16 200 ignition 0 3
29 14 >1.63 Torr 16 200 ignition 0 6

Acknowledgments
This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract
with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The authors would like to thank the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
for funding this research through its internal Research and Technology Development program. The authors would also
like to acknowledge the contributions of the rest of the test team for supporting all testing efforts.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer,
or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement by the United States Government or the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.

10
 References
[1] Schoolcraft, J., Klesh, A., and Werne, T., “MarCO: Interplanetary Mission Development On a CubeSat Scale,” 14th International
Conference on Space Operations, 2016, p. 2491.

[2] Jens, E. T., Karp, A. C., Nakazono, B., and Rabinovitch, J., “Hybrid Propulsion System Enabling Orbit Insertion Delta-Vs
within a 12 U Spacecraft,” 2019 IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–3.

[3] Jens, E. T., Karp, A. C., Rabinovitch, J., , Nakazono, B., Conte, A., and Vaughan, D., “Design of Interplanetary Hybrid
CubeSat and SmallSat Propulsion Systems,” 54th AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2018.

[4] Dyrda, D., Korneyeva, V., and Cantwell, B., “Diode Laser Ignition Mechanism for Hybrid Propulsion Systems,” AIAA
Propulsion and Energy, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2019.

[5] Conte, A., Rabinovitch, J., Jens, E., Karp, A. C., Nakazono, B., and Vaughan, D., Design, Modeling and Testing of a O2/CH4
Igniter for a Hybrid Rocket Motor, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2018.

[6] Gatto, C. E., and Nakazono, B., Life Test Results of a MONARC 5 1 lbf Monopropellant Thruster with Heraeus Catalyst, American
Downloaded by Jason Rabinovitch on August 17, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-4009

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2014. doi:10.2514/6.2014-3795, URL https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2014-3795.

[7] Jens, E. T., Karp, A., Rabinovitch, J., Dyrda, D., Fournier-Bidoz, E., Preudhomme, M., Hinchman, R., Nakazono, B., and
Vaughan, D., “Design and Testing of a Hybrid Rocket Motor to Enable Interplanetary CubeSat Missions,” 68th International
Astronautical Congress, 2017.

[8] Mechentel, F., Karp, A. C., Nakazono, B., Parker, M., and Vaughan, D., Hybrid Propulsion In-Situ Resource Utilization Test
Facility Results for Performance Characterization, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2016.

[9] Huzel, D. K., and Huang, D. H., Modern Engineering for Design of Liquid-Propellant Rocket Engines, Vol. 147, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Washington, DC, 1992. doi:10.2514/4.866197.

[10] Simurda, L., and Zilliac, G., Continued Testing of the High Performance Hybrid Propulsion System for Small Satellites, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2015. doi:10.2514/6.2015-4201, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-
4201.

[11] Mechentel, F. S., and Cantwell, B. J., Small-scale Gaseous Oxygen Hybrid Rocket Testing Facility Upgrades for Regression Rate
and Combustion Efficiency Studies, 2018. doi:10.2514/6.2018-4439, URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.
2018-4439.

[12] Dyrda, D., and Cantwell, B. J., “Development of a Laser Ignition Scheme for Hybrid Rocket Motors,” AIAA Propulsion and
Energy, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2018, p. 4444.

[13] Rabinovitch, J., Jens, E., Karp, A. C., Nakazono, B., Conte, A., and Vaughan, D., “Characterization of PolyMethylMethAcrylate
as a Fuel for Hybrid Rocket Motors,” 54th AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2018.

[14] Dyrda, D., Mechentel, F., Cantwell, B., Karp, A. C., Rabinovitch, J., and Jens, E. T., “Diode Laser Ignition Testing for
PMMA/GOX Hybrid Motors,” AIAA Propulsion and Energy, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2019.

11