See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259981271

Overview of Alternative Propellants for Use in PPT

Conference Paper · June 2013

CITATIONS READS

4 1,019

2 authors, including:

Abdolrahim Rezaeiha
KU Leuven
39 PUBLICATIONS 1,055 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Towards optimal layout design of vertical-axis wind-turbine farms View project

Towards Efficient Urban Wind Energy Harvesting View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdolrahim Rezaeiha on 25 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2013-b-28

Overview of Alternative Propellants for Use in PPT

By Abdolrahim Rezaeiha1) and Tony Schönherr2)

1)
Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
2)
The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
rezaeiha@alum.sharif.edu, schoenherr@al.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp

PTFE is still the propellant of choice for space applications of pulsed plasma thruster (PPT). This
stems from its long successful flight heritage together with the advantage of simplicity it offer compared
to liquid and gaseous propellant. It basically eliminates the need for typical storage tanks and propellant
feeding lines and valves. However, its self-regulated supply of mass and power has resulted in low
propellant utilization and thrust efficiencies for PPTs. Therefore, alternative propellants have been
proposed and investigated on pulsed plasma thrusters (PPT). Some resulted in performance
improvements in return to the complexity they added to the system while others faced technological
obstacles. In the present paper, a comparison of various PPT propellants is provided and this gives an
insight into the advantages and disadvantages of them with respect to the developed models. The results
can be an assistance to lead future research to cover the gaps and produce highly-efficient PPTs.

Key Words: Electric propulsion, Pulsed plasma thruster, Propellant

1. Introduction xenon, nitrogen, and water vapor can be mentioned.5) They

Due to the growing interest for smaller satellites,
microthrusters have become the center of attention for
more than a decade already. Among the flight-ready
microthrusters, pulsed plasma thruster is an ideal option for
micro- and nano-satellites as it is capable of performing a
variety of low-thrust propulsive tasks from orbital
maneuvers to precision attitude control. Moreover, pulsed
plasma thrusters benefit from simplicity, reliability, small
size, low power consumption, throttleability, and high
specific impulse. PPT performance has been studied over
the years and significant improvements have been made in
terms of thrust efficiency and modelling. However, further
optimizations are expected to be achieved through
extensive parametric studies as there are many parameters
affecting performance with the propellant being
significantly influential.1,2)
Propellants of all three states of matter have ever been
investigated on PPT; however, to this date PTFE has
remained the propellant of choice for space applications.
Solid propellants generally are the preferable propellant as
they keep the simplicity of the system by eliminating the
use of storage tanks, feed lines, and valves; therefore,
leading to high reliability. Different fluorocarbons and
composite materials have been among the solid propellants
ever investigated. However, they most specifically suffer
from self-regulated propellant feeding which is strongly
dependent on energy input. This results in PPT poor
performance, i.e., low propellant utilization and thrust
efficiency.3,4)
Gaseous and liquid propellants were proposed to overcome
this drawback. Among gaseous propellants studied argon,
led to high specific impulse and thrust efficiency at very
high working frequencies of more than 1 kHz; therefore,
they require very fast-acting valves and this technological
obstacle hindered their further development at some stages.
Liquid propellants were also extensively studied, especially
during the last decade and satisfactory performance results
were reported by various institutes. Over the years, water,
methanol, ethanol, buthanol, DME, mercury, gallium,
lithium, and cesium were all investigated, numerically or
experimentally.6) High specific impulse and thrust
efficiency and low impulse-to-energy ratio were the typical
characteristics of liquid propellants for PPT.
Essentially, alternative propellants (esp. liquid and gases)
could eliminate late-ablation phenomena which drastically
damages PPT performance. Hybrid systems were proposed
to compensate individual disadvantages.4) Additionally,
supply of mass and energy are done independently in
non-ablative PPT which might improve propellant
utilization efficiency.
2. PPT Alternative Propellants
Laboratory PPTs have been operated using a variety of
propellants in the hopes of performance improvements
compared to PTFE. Some were promising while some
others lost interest after initial results. Their performance
data were mostly evaluated using thrust stands while some
other were numerically investigated. Table 1 lists almost
all of the alternative propellants which their data has been
reported. To have a better of image of each propellant, a
comparison of their attributed performance is provided in
the following sections.

1

Table 1. PPT alternative propellants used so far.
State Alternative propellants
Solid Fluorocarbons, Teflon
sintered, seeded or
impregnated Teflon,
composite propellants,
powdered propellants
Gas Argon, nitrogen, xenon,
water vapor
Liquid Water, methanol, ethanol,
buthanol, dimethyl ether
(DME), mercury, gallium,
lithium, cesium
3. Solid Propellants
3.1. Other fluorocarbons
Other fluorocarbons other than PTFE were evaluated7-9)
to investigate potential performance improvements over
PTFE. The investigated fluorocarbons include Celcon®,
Halar®, Tefzel®, Halon®, Kynar®, Viton®, Fluorel®, Kel-F®,
Genetron®, Delrin-AF®, CTFE-2300®, polypropylene,
polyethylene, and high-density polystyrene. However, not
all the performance data reported were promising. The
specific impulse for Celcon and Halon were quite equal to
this amount for PTFE while Tefzel had 38% more specific
impulse operating at the same range of power. The
impulse-to-energy ratios for them were in the same
neighborhood with PTFE.7) The higher specific impulse of
Tefzel can be a result of its lower molecular mass. A
common problem of charring was experienced by several
of fluorocarbons including Delrin-AF, and Kynar,
polypropylene8) and Halar7). Specific impulse of other
fluorocarbons varied from 947 s for Kel-F® to 2410 s for
polyethylene while specific impulse for PTFE was 1085
s.8) All the other fluorocarbons were investigated on
breech-fed PPTs and no application of them for Side-fed
PPTs was found.
Another research9) operated PPT with high-density
polystyrene and resulted in 31% more specific impulse
over PTFE but 51% lower impulse-to-energy ratio.
3.2. Sintered, seeded, or impregnated PTFE
Teflon seeded and sintered with 10% and 30% of LiOH
and InBr were investigated and the results were no higher
than PTFE. However, a constant decrease in impulse bit
was experienced for both sintered cases when number of
pulses increased.7)
The results from 2% by mass Carbon-impregnated Teflon
were promising when it yielded the same
impulse-to-energy ratio but 87% higher specific impulse at
given operating conditions.9)
3.3. Composite propellants
Use of composite chemical solid propellants (HTPB-AP)
showed to be a potential way to enhance PPT performance.
HTPB-AP with a mixture ration of 10/90 yielded 20%
2
more impulse-to-energy ratio and slightly higher thrust
efficiency over PTFE. Specific impulse for this mixture
ratio was lower than PTFE while for all the other mixture
ratios from 50/50, 70/30, and 100/0 higher specific
impulses were reported.10)
3.4. Powdered propellants
Investigations on utilization of powdered PTFE resulted
in successful experiments and the impulse bit measured
were in the same range but lower specific impulse.11)
4. Liquid Propellants
Liquid and gaseous propellants were promising since
they enabled independent supply of mass and power into
PPT and subsequently they eliminated the main source of
PPT low propellant utilization efficiency, i.e. late-time
ablation and emission of large low-velocity neutral
particulates. Therefore, they could achieve higher
propellant utilization efficiencies. Moreover, use of
propellant with lower molecular mass yielded higher
exhaust velocity, specific impulse, and thrust efficiency.
Moreover, liquid propellant PPTs offer the following
advantages over SPPTs:
 Ability to precisely control the amount of propellant per
shot with regard to discharge energy to enhance
propellant utilization efficiency
 Higher specific impulse and thrust efficiency for the
same energy level possible
 Elimination of late-time effects and emission of large
low-speed neutral particulates by means of fine
propellant feeding
 Elimination of depositions of carbon and fluoride
residues on PPT electrodes (in case of solid
fluorocarbon propellant)
 Elimination of possibility of operational stop as a result
of deposition of carbon on PTFE surface and igniter
plug electrodes
 Elimination of PPT plume contamination for satellite
solar arrays and camera lens
 Elimination of non-uniformity in propellant consumption
 Less erosion of electrodes in case of water-propellant
LPPT
4.1. Water
Water is by far the most investigated liquid propellant
which promised to be the propellant of choice for LPPTs. It
has lower average molecular weight than PTFE resulting in
higher specific impulse. For space use, it can have other
possible synergetic applications, i.e., use of waste liquids
(e.g., onboard the ISS) and combined operation with other
liquid propulsion systems. Water enables an efficient use
of gas-dynamic component of thrust by designing suitable
geometries of acceleration channel which is generally not
possible for PTFE because of its carbon deposition. Water
is nontoxic, nonflammable, nonvolatile, noncorrosive,
nonpolluting and abundant at very low cost; easy and
cheap handling. It is easily storable for long time. It has
higher density than gaseous propellant, thus it has no need
for high-pressure vessels; subsequently results in reducing
tank and structure mass which is especially important for
microsatellites. And its exhaust plume contains no carbon
and, thus, reduces danger of accumulation of conducting
layer on sensitive electrical or optical equipment. It also
has no deposition on electrodes and igniter which increases
PPT life time. From the experimental results, higher
specific impulse, thrust efficiency, propellant utilization
efficiency but lower impulse bit and impulse-to-energy
ratio were reported for water LPPTs over PTFE6,12,13).
4.2. Methanol
Methanol was the liquid investigated prior to water in
Japan on a coaxial PPT, however, no promising results
were attained and it was then replaced by water.6,14)
4.3. DME
DME was once experimentally studied on a coaxial PPT
but very poor specific impulse and thrust efficiency was
resulted. It produced the highest impulse bit and
impulse-to-energy ratio among all the other liquid
propellant.6,15)
 Better impedance matching due to its low impedance
 Higher specific impulse and thrust efficiency
5.1. Argon and Xenon
Argon and Xenon were operated on a coaxial PPT at low
energy levels and variable mass shots. Argon yielded
higher specific impulse and thrust efficiency and
comparable impulse bit to Xenon at the same energy levels
and mass shots. Their performance data at lower mass
shots showed higher specific impulse and thrust efficiency
but lower impulse bit over PTFE. GPPTs definitely offered
more complexity for a PPT.5,19)
5.2. Water vapor
Water vapor was used on a rectangular PPT and yielded
the highest performance parameters among other gas
propellants and the results candidate it as an appropriate
propellant option for GPPTs.20)
6. Comparison
A qualitative comparison of investigated PPT alternative
propellant is provided in Table 2.

4.4. Other liquids Table 2. Comparison of PPT alternative propellants.4,6)

Gallium16), cesium, lithium12), ethanol, buthanol17), and Propellant Advantages Disadvantages
mercury18) were all either numerically or experimentally Solid
investigated at various power levels and geometries, PTFE No valves, injectors, Low Isp, late-time
however, no promising performance data was reported.6) Fluorocarbons and feed control, easy ablation, particulate
Teflon sintered, storage and handling, emission, coupled
5. Gaseous Propellants seeded or impregnated abundant, high I/E mass and energy feed
Teflon
As previously stated gaseous propellants benefit from the composite propellants
possibility of independent supply of mass and power into powdered propellants
PPT and the aforementioned points. However, as they
Liquid
operated at high frequencies, their further development was
Water Independent mass and Need for valve,
hindered by technological problems of developing reliable
DME energy feed, injector, and storage,
fast-acting valves. The fact that liquids diffuse more slowly
Methanol abundant, high Isp low I/E, low degree of
eliminates the same necessity for LPPTs.
ionization, heater
Some very high performance data of GPPTs have been
needed (additional
reported from before 2000s, some even beyond
mass and power),
theoretically possible values. However, the reported data
leakage
were either influenced by small vacuum chamber size
and/or diffusion pump oil that contaminated electrodes and Gaseous
provided additional, unaccounted for mass and improved Xenon Independent mass and Rare, need for
performance beyond reasonable. Later GPPTs reported5) energy feed, high Isp, fast-acting valve,
did not have this problem. No GPPT truly exceeded 30% high I/E at medium injector, and
of efficiency. and high power, high-pressure storage,
GPPTs have several advantages over SPPTs:19) precise mass feed and low I/E at low power
 No contamination control
 Wider range of propellants Argon Independent mass and Very high pulse
 Wider range of impulse-to-energy ratios, therefore better Nitrogen energy feed, frequency for good
throttleability (fixed geometry) Water vapor abundant, high Isp, operation, leakage,
 Wider range of specific impulse (sixed geometry and precise mass feed and need for fast-acting
variable mass bit) control valve, injector, and
 Better miniaturization potential high-pressure storage,
 Better performance repeatability per shot low I/E
 Elimination of late-time ablation and large particulates

3
 Preliminary results of combining solid and liquid
propellants in a single discharge4) show an expected
increase in impulse bit, but has deficiencies regarding
specific impulse and thrust efficiency as a result of the
elevated mass. Further studies for optimization of
discharge properties in relation to the injected mass are
necessary to verify the feasibility of an efficient hybrid
system.
7. Conclusions
Various propellants have been used on PPTs to
investigate the potential of replacing the typical PTFE in
the hope of higher propellant utilization efficiency, thrust
efficiency, and specific impulse. Among other solid
propellants studied so far Tefzel® yielded 38% more
specific impulse over PTFE at given operating conditions
and has been a promising option among solid alternatives
together with carbon-impregnated Teflon®. Liquid and
gaseous propellants were offering a significant benefit over
solids, i.e. the independent supply of mass and power into
PPT and subsequent elimination of late-time ablation and
large particulates, therefore higher propellant utilization
efficiency. Water and water vapor have shown to be a great
alternative for PTFE due to many advantages of versatile
aspects. Hybrid systems to use both liquid and solid
propellants are recently proposed and under further
investigation.
References
1) Rezaeiha, A. and Schönherr, T., Analysis of Effective
Parameters on Ablative PPT Performance, Aircraft
Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 84
(2012), Iss. 4, pp. 231-243.
2) Rezaeiha, A., Effect of Power on PPT Discharge
Current, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace
Technology, Vol. 85 (2013), Iss. 3.
3) Schönherr, T., Komurasaki, K., Herdrich, G.,
Propellant Utilization Efficiency in a Pulsed Plasma
Thruster, Journal of Propulsion and Power,
Submitted (2012).
4) Schönherr, T., Abe, Y., Okamura, K., Koizumi, H.,
Arakawa, Y., Komurasaki, K., Influence of Propellant
in the Discharge Process of PPT, AIAA-2012-4278,
2012.
5) Ziemer, J., Choueiri, E., and Birx, D., Is the Gas-fed
PPT an Electromagnetic Accelerator? An
Investigation using Measured Performance,
AIAA-1999-2289, 1999.
6) Rezaeiha, A. and Schönherr, T., Review of Worldwide
Activities in Liquid-fed PPT, Journal of Propulsion
and Power, Submitted (2012).
7) Palumbo, D. J. and Guman, W. J., Effects of
Propellant and Electrode Geometry on Pulsed Ablative
View publication stats
Plasma Thruster Performance, Journal of Spacecraft
and Rockets, Vol. 13 (1976), No. 3, pp. 163-167.
8) Rezaeiha et al., Design, development and operation of
a laboratory pulsed plasma thruster for the first time in
west Asia, Transactions of JSASS, Aerospace
Technology Japan, Vol. 9 (2011), pp. 45-50.
9) Kamhawi, H., Pencil, E. J., and Haag, T., High
Impulse-to-energy Rectangular Pulsed Plasma
Thruster, AIAA-2002-3975, 2002.
10) Mashidori, H., and Tachibana, T., Use of Solid
Chemical Propellants for Coaxial Pulsed Plasma
Thrusters, International Symposium on Space
Technology and Science, ISTS-2006-b-16, 2006.
11) Saito, T., Koizumi, H., and Kuninaka, H., Powdered
Propellant PPT with Automatic Feed System,
AIAA-2009-1381, 2009.
12) Scharlemann, C. A., Investigation of Thrust
Mechanism in a Water-Fed Pulsed Plasma Thruster,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Aerospace, Applied
Mechanics and Aviation, The Ohio State Univ., Ohio,
USA, 2003.
13) Koizumi, H., Kawazoe, Y., Komurasaki, K., and
Arakawa, Y., Performance Improvement of a Liquid
Propellant Pulsed Plasma Thruster, International
Electric Propulsion Conference, IEPC-2005-069,
Oct.-Nov., 2005.
14) Kakami, A., Koizumi, H., Komurasaki, K., and
Arakawa, Y., Liquid Propellant PPT Performance,
International Symposium on Space Science and
Technology, ISTS-2002-b-15, June, 2002.
15) Masui, S., Okada, T., Kitatomi, M., Kakami, A., and
Tachibana, T., A Pulsed Plasma Thruster Using
Dimethyl Ether as Propellant, International
Symposium on Space Technology and Science,
ISTS-2011-b-04, June, 2011.
16) Markusic, T. E., Liquid-Metal-Fed Pulsed
Electromagnetic Thrusters for In-Space Propulsion,
Proceedings of JANNAF Propulsion Meeting, Las
Vegas, NV, May, 2004.
17) Kakami, A., Koizumi, H., Komurasaki, K., and
Arakawa, Y., Design and Performance of Liquid
Propellant Pulsed Plasma Thruster, Vacuum, Vol. 73
(2004), pp.419-425.
18) Fearn, D. G., A Late-1960s Project at the Royal
Aerospace Establishment, Farnborough, International
Electric Propulsion Conference, IEPC-07-290, Sep.,
2007.
19) Ziemer, J. K., Cubbin, E. A., and Choueiri, E. Y.,
Performance Characterization of a High Efficiency
Gas-fed Pulsed Plasma Thruster, AIAA-1997-2925,
1997.
20) Ziemer, J. K., and Petr, R. A., Performance of Gas
Fed Pulsed Plasma Thrusters Using Water Vapor
Propellant, AIAA-2002-4273, 2002.