NASA Technical Memorandum 113157 AIAA-97-2948

Electrolysis Propulsion for

Spacecraft Applications

Wim A. de Groot and Lynn A. Arrington

NYMA, Inc., Brook Park, Ohio

James F. McElroy
Hamilton Standard, Windsor Locks, Connecticut

Fred Mitlitsky, Andrew H. Weisberg,

Preston H. Carter II, and Blake Myers
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California

Brian D. Reed
Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Lewis Research Center

October 1997
 Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information National Technical Information Service

800 Elkridge Landing Road 5287 Port Royal Road
Lynthicum, MD 21090-2934 Springfield, VA 22100
Price Code: A03 Price Code: A03
 Electrolysis Propulsion for Spacecraft Applications

Wim A. de Groot* and Lynn A. Arrington**

NYMA Inc, NASA LeRC Group
Brook Park, Ohio

James F. McElroy***
Hamilton Standard
Windsor Locks, Connecticut

Fred Mitlitsky t , Andrew H. Weisberg tt , Preston H. Carter II¢ , and Blake Myers _s
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, California

Brian D. Reed s
NASA Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio

Abstract Introduction

Electrolysis propulsion has been recognized over Innovative new systems are being sought to
the last several decades as a viable option to improve mission performance and reduce cost.
meet many satellite and spacecraft propulsion Electrolysis propulsion, either alone or combined
requirements. This technology, however, was with fuel cell power offers the potential to
never used for in-space missions. In the same provide a synergistic power and propulsion
time frame, water based fuel cells have flown in a system for small spacecraft.
number of missions. These systems have many
components similar to electrolysis propulsion On-board propulsion systems must satisfy a
systems. Recent advances in component variety of propulsion functions, including orbit
technology include: lightweight tankage, water insertion, attitude control, station keeping,
vapor feed electrolysis, fuel cell technology, and repositioning, and primary propulsion for
thrust chamber materials for propulsion. Taken planetary spacecraft. There already exists a
together, these developments make propulsion number of low thrust propulsion options to carry
and/or power using electrolysis/fuel cell out these maneuvers. Cold gas propulsion is
technology very attractive as separate or commonly used when propulsion requirements
integrated systems. A water electrolysis are small and where cost and system simplicity
propulsion testbed was constructed and tested in are decisive factors. Monopropellant hydrazine
a joint NASA/Hamilton Standard/Lawrence (N2I-I4) systems are generally used for orbit
Livermore National Laboratories program to insertion of smaller satellites because of its
demonstrate these technology developments for higher specific impulse (Isp) compared to cold
propulsion. The results from these testbed gas systems. However, monopropellant systems
experiments using a I-N thruster are presented. A are more costly and complex than cold gas.
concept to integrate a propulsion system and a Storable bipropellants, utilizing nitrogen
fuel cell system into a unitized spacecraft tetroxide (NTO) as oxidizer and either
propulsion and power system is outlined. monomethyihydrazine (MMH) or N21-I4 as fuel,

Sr. Research Engineer, Senior Member AIAA

..
Research Engineer, Member AIAA
"'" Program Manager

t Program Manager, Member AIAA

tt Space Group Scientist, Member AIAA
_: Aerospace Engineer, Member AIAA
_ Mechanical Engineer, Associate Fellow AIAA

NASA TM-113157 1
have been used extensively for orbit insertion of products from ambient pressure up to pressures
medium to large satellites and for primary of at least 20 MPa. The absence of a
propulsion in planetary spacecraft. These systems pressurization system simplifies the propellant
in turn are more costly and complex than feed significantly and eliminates components that
monopropellant systems. must have long-term compatibility with
propellants. For deep space missions, water is
A recent trend is toward the use of electric significantly easier to contain than the hypergolic
thruster systems for satellite on-orbit functions. Earth storables, offering stability over a
For example, arcjets are already used for North- relatively wide temperature range. A final
South station keeping of geostationary satellites. advantage of the water rocket is its dual mode
High power ion and Hall thrusters are being potential. For relatively high thrust applications,
developed for orbit transfer and primary the system can be used as a bipropellant engine.
planetary propulsion missions. 2 Pulsed plasma For low thrust levels and/or small impulse bit
thrusters are poised to be flight tested for requirements, cold gas oxygen can be used alone.
precision on-orbit functions on smaller satellites.
The potential of the water electrolysis rocket as a
Water electrolysis propulsion can provide higher high performance propulsion device has been
performance than the established chemical recognized for some time. Newman 4 discussed
propulsion options. At equal thrust levels, power water electrolysis propulsion for reaction control
requirements of water electrolysis propulsion systems (RCS) in 1965. Stechman et al. 5
(-0.17 N/kW) are greatly below those of electric demonstrated that 500,000 N-s of total impulse
propulsion devices (-0.08 N/kW for 2.2 kW could be obtained with a water electrolysis
arcjets, and 0.03 N/kW for 2.6 kW ion thrusters). satellite propulsion system during laboratory
These advantages become more pronounced at tests with 20 N and 0.5 N engines. Such a
lower power levels, where efficiencies of electric propulsion system, however, was never accepted
propulsion devices are significantly reduced. In a for a flight program. This was partly due to the
water electrolysis propulsion system, water decision that the improved performance was not
stored in a lightweight, low pressure tank is fed sufficient to mitigate the perceived increase in
to an electrolyzer. The electrolyzer consumes complexity. Other disadvantages included: the
electrical energy to decompose the water into large tankage needed for gaseous storage, the
pressurized hydrogen and oxygen. If solar energy increased weight due to the need to pressure feed
is available, these devices can also serve as a the electrolyzer, the limited power available for
load leveling function, storing the energy as propellant generation, the propellant utilization
hydrogen and oxygen gases. The propellant is penalty of gas dryers, and the ignition
clean and inexpensive, reducing costs associated requirement.
with propellant acquisition, ground handling,
maintenance, and launch. Water can be stored in Recent advances in propellant storage
compact, lightweight tanks at relatively high technology, 6 water vapor feed electrolysis, 7's and
density (1.0 g/cc). Storage requirements for solar array performance, along with a flurry of
propulsion are set by one or more high impulse research in GH2/GO2 ignition (e.g. the LEAP
'"ourns", where the hydrogen and oxygen are program and SSTO, 9 among others) have made
stored in separate tanks, to be mixed and ignited the use of electrolysis propulsion more attractive
inside the combustion chamber of a conventional from a mass standpoint. In addition, there now
rocket engine. The gaseous hydrogen/gaseous exists an innovative new system which improves
oxygen (GH2/GO2) propellants have performance the performance of small spacecraft called the
measured at an Isp of over 350 s (at thrust levels Unitized Regenerative Fuel Cell (URFC), an
of 0.5 to 15 N), 3 which is superior to earth integrated electrolyzer and fuel cell in a single
storable chemical alternatives. The products of reversible unit. 7 This system offers the potential
combustion are clean and free of carbon, sparing for dual use (power and propulsion) and a
optics and other sensitive instruments from substantial weight savings over established,
degradation. Contamination issues with water separate, propulsion and power systems in
vapor condensation are mission dependent and certain mission scenarios. A Hamilton Standard
need to be investigated. study 8 showed that for low-earth-orbit (LEO)
satellites, the specific energy (energy capacity
Neither mechanical pumps nor pressurant gas are per weight of storage unit) of a water fuel cell
required to feed a water electrolysis rocket was better than state-of-the an NiCad batteries

system, because electrolyzers are now able to and approximately equal to that of NiH batteries,
electrochemically "pump" water decomposition about 15 W-hr/kg. This study did not include the

NASA TM-113157 2
lightweight tankage proposed in the current This paper will first describe recent advances in
system, whichwouldprovidehigherspecific component technologies which may make
energy.Integratingthefuelcellsystem withan electrolysis propulsion a viable candidate for a
electrolysis
propulsion system furtherreduces the variety of mission scenarios. This is followed by
combined propulsionandpowersystem weight a description of a testbed built at NASA LeRC in
duetocommon components, suchasgasstorage a cooperative program partnering Lewis
andtheelectrolyzer/fuel
cell.Theenergy density Research Center, Hamilton Standard and
of sucha unitized system forLEOapplications Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, and
increasesanorderofmagnitude (-150W-hr/kg). results obtained from experiments in a high
Also,theweightadvantage of bothstand alone altitude simulation chamber.
fuel cellsandunitizedsystems increases for
missions witha longer energy charge-discharge
cycles.Thisresultsfromtheseparation ofpower Component Technologies
andenergyinsidetheURFC.Batteries scale
linearlywith energystoragerequirement, A schematic of a water electrolysis propulsion
whereas forURFC's, onlythestorage tanksscale system which could be used to provide all
withenergystorage requirements. Thereactor propulsion functions in a small satellite
stackisscaled onlyforpower. application is shown in Fig. 2. It includes a
primary thruster for high AV maneuvers, four
Perceivedsystem complexity
canbe a major cold gas thrusters for thrust vector control during
obstacle
to in-flightuse.Theadditionof an primary bums, and twelve cold gas thrusters for
electrolyzer
to thepropulsionsystem slightly attitude control (ACS). This system is designed
increasescomplexity overa gaspressurized to replace two conventional (i.e. cold gas and
system.
However, thecombination
ofatenfold
or NEH4) systems that would be needed to perform
morereduction in combinedpropulsion/power the same functions in a mission utilizing state-of-
systemmassoverstate-of-the-art
systemsandthe the-art technology. Key components of the water
cleannessof propellantscan favora more electrolysis system are discussed below. They are
complexsystem. the etectrolyzer, gas dryers, the water and
propellant tankage, the propellant feed system,
Thefull advantageofelectrolysis
propulsion
is and the thrusters. In addition, the technology to
gainedwhenpossiblesynergies with other integrate propulsion and power is discussed.
subsystemsarerealized.
A schematicof sucha
proposed unitizedsystem
is shownin Fig. 1. Electrolyzer
Because most of the power for flight electronics A detailed description of the water vapor feed
isn't required during orbital transfer maneuvers, electrolyzer is given in Reference 7. This
it will often be available to electrolyze water electrolyzer is based on Hamilton Standards'
without adding additional capability and mass solid polymer electrolyte (SPE _) technology. The
penalty. High performance gas storage tanks can electrolyzer uses this sulfonic acid proton
provide some, if not most of the structure exchange membrane as the sole electrolyte. The
required by spacecraft that must function as stiff membrane is fashioned into electrochemical cells
instrument platforms. A unitized propulsion and by bonding catalyst electrodes to both faces. The
power system was proposed for a New single electrolysis cell consists of a water feed
Millennium Program spacecraft concept. 7 For the chamber, a water permeable membrane, a
system proposed, a URFC was used to replace hydrogen chamber, a SPE membrane, an oxygen
the baseline batteries for energy storage. The chamber, an electrochemical hydrogen pump,
modest 30% increase in electrolyzer mass was and electrical insulators on both end plates.
more than offset by the savings in battery mass Hydrogen and oxygen are produced on either
which accounted for as much as 10% of the wet side of the SPE membrane with the application of
mass. The projected benefits of such an DC power. The water feed chamber is separated
integrated system were a weight savings of over from the hydrogen gas chamber by water
50% for low-earth-orbit spacecraft, increasing permeable membranes which allow osmotic
with higher energy storage needs. Missions water transport into the hydrogen chamber.
analyses show that electrolysis systems also Because water is being consumed to produce
provide significant weight savings for propellants, a water gradient is established across
applications which require a large number of the water feed barrier and more water from the
impulsive bums. storage tank enters the cell. An electrochemical

NASA TM-113157 3
hydrogenpump,
drawingafewmilliwattassures Propellant Feed System
thatno hydrogen
buildsup in thewaterfeed The propellant feed system described here is
chamber. designed for maximum simplicity. Pressurization
of the propellants is accomplished through the
The reliabilityof the water vaporfeed electrolyzer. Direct feed lines from the
electrolysissystemhas beendemonstrated electrolyzer to the tanks supply propellants. For
previouslyin anaccelerated testsimulating 10 highly controllable impulse bits and maximum
yearsworthof propellant productionfor North combustion efficiency, regulators are needed
South station keeping (NSSK) on a between the tanks and thruster to control the
geosynchronous satellite.
_° Utilizing the propellant mass flow rates. For less restrictive
electrochemical"pumping" actionof the SPE needs, a blowdown system could be used to
electrolyzer,
gaseoushydrogen andoxygen upto simplify the operation and reduce system weight
pressures of 2.72MPa(20 MPahasbeen resulting in some performance reduction.
demonstrated) wereproduced, withsubsequent
burnsconsuming propellantsdownto 0.7MPa Over the last several years, strict micro-
tankpressure. SPE-based fuelcellshaveflown propulsion requirements have driven the
on sevenGeminimissions, l_ but SPE-based development in valve and regulator
vaporfeedelectrolyzers havenotbeenflight technologies. This has resulted in the reduction
qualifiedyet.Sizingof the electrolyzer for of leak rates (internal leakage <10 -6 scc/h He for
selectedmissionsdepends onthesystems design valves and < 1 scc/h for regulators,
approach. Eitherthe electrolyzer is scaled respectively), minimizing power requirements (<
accordingtotheavailablepower andthemission 9 Watts), and minimizing mass (10-100 gms). 12
is accomplished with the givenpropellant In order to satisfy even stricter requirements,
generation rate,or the electrolyzeris scaled near term developments are focused on micro-
according to the missionrequirements which electromechanical systems (MEMS) technology
dictatetherequired propellant
generation rate to further reduce the mass and achievable flow
andthereforepower. Inthiscase,additional
solar rates. The biggest obstacle with MEMS,
collectors
todrivetheelectrolyzerareadded. On however, is the leak rate, which has been greater
highdelta-Vmissions, the higherIspof the than for conventionally manufactured valves, and
hydrogen/oxygen propellantscompensates for the need to filter even the smallest particles.
the additionalmassof components (e.g.,
electrolyzers,gas tanks, additionalsolar Water and Propellant Tankage
collectors)that state-of-the-art chemical Because the vapor feed electrolyzer pressurizes
propulsionsystemsdonotrequire. the propellant, the water supply can be stored at
ambient pressures in thin-walled, light weight
Gas Dryers tanks. The storage of gaseous reactants,
Both the hydrogen and the oxygen leaving the especially hydrogen, however, has always been a
electrolysis unit contain small quantities of water problem for on orbit applications. For missions
vapor. If not removed, this water vapor could in which a velocity change must be accomplished
condense inside the tanks and propellant lines. in a single, large AV burn, the required tank mass
Furthermore, the presence of water vapor inside to contain the required gaseous hydrogen is high.
the propellants will reduce thruster performance.
The installation of propellant dryers based on a If multiple bums are possible to accomplish the
desiccant bed is a simple solution. This would be mission, filling and draining gas storage pressure
a highly reliable passive component. For small vessels multiple times can effectively reduce the
spacecraft applications, the amount of water mass penalty of gaseous hydrogen storage. The
vapor will be low, so this component will be propellant tanks are now sized to accommodate
small with relatively low weight. The amount of only the largest bum of the mission, the required
water vapor depends on gas pressure. A mass is effectively "amortized" over the number
conservative estimate is that for a 7.0 MPa of times that the tank gets refilled during the
system, approximately 2% need to be added to mission.
the propellant mass in order to account for the
desiccant mass. The amount of water absorbed in The figure of merit for lightweight pressure tanks
the desiccant under these conditions is is the performance factor, which is the burst
approximately 0.25 % of the total water wet pressure multiplied by the internal volume and
mass. divided by the tank weight (Pb.V/W). Recent

NASA TM-113157 4
work on propellant tankage 6's has greatly extensivelyJ TM These non-optimized thrusters
improved the performance factor. State of the art have achieved Isp's up to 360 s at stochiometric
performance factors are 4 miilion-cm for large mixture ratio. Most recently, 2200-N, GH2/GO2
tanks (lower for smaller tanks), with a safety thrusters were developed for the X-33, the
factor (maximum expected operating pressure / technology demonstrator vehicle for the
burst pressure) of 1.5. Because tanks are Reusable Launch Vehicle. 9
generally assumed to be pressurized in flight, this
safety factor is conservative for tanks that are not In all of the past work, fuel-film cooling was
pressurized when humans, launch vehicles, or used for thermal and oxidation protection of
other spacecraft are at risk. The performance thruster walls. The presence of such a fuel-film
factor is aggressive compared to commercially reduced thruster performance. In order to
available space qualified pressure vessels which maximize thruster performance in the highly
have a performance factor of 2 million-cm. oxidizing combustion environment of a
However, aggressive performance factors are stochiometric GH2/GOz thruster, advanced
feasible using thin bladder-liners overwrapped thruster materials, such as iridium-coated
with T1000 carbon fiber composite. Prototype rhenium (lr/Re) may be needed. This material
bladder-lined tanks of modest size have recently provides a 700 K increase in operating
been fabricated which achieved 4 million-cm temperature over the best state-of-the-art
using thick end domes and two heavy stainless chamber material. Ir/Re rockets have allowed the
steel bosses sized for automotive applications. 6 virtual elimination of fuel-film cooling for
Reducing the mass of the bosses and end domes storable bipropellants, resulting in greatly
should enable 5 million-cm tanks for large improved performance. 17 As the result of an
volumes and 4 million-cm tanks for modest intensive development program, these thrusters
volumes. Small tank volumes (which generally are close to being commercially available. For
result in low performance factors) are readily stochiometric GH2/GOz, Ir/Re with an additional
contained within required structural members. oxide coating for increased oxidation-resistance
Thus, aggressive performance factors are may be a better option. Several 22-N, oxide-
justified even for small volumes, if only the mass coated Ir/Re thrusters have been tested on
increment of turning structural members into GH2/GO2 up to a mixture ratio of 17.18
pressure vessels is considered as tank weight.
This results in a significant weight reduction as Leveraging the results of advanced thruster
compared to the use of conventional tankage. materials research and redesigning thrusters to
operate with radiative cooling alone, can increase
Thrusters specific impulse by a significant margin
For the current study, a I-N GH2/GO2 thruster (projected Isp > 380 s) while at the same time
was build into the testbed. This thruster consisted operating in an oxidizing environment. The
of an ignitor, an injector, a chamber, a throat, and additional performance that could be obtained
a 23.3:1 area ratio nozzle. Small GH2/GO2 from GH2/GO2 systems is higher than from
thrusters have been developed and tested over storable propellant systems using the same
the last three decades. 13 Flight type thrusters built materials.
for satellite electrolysis propulsion concepts
(thrust levels from 0.5 to 22 N) have been tested One major difference between GH2/GO2 and
extensively. 43'14 A 22-N thruster demonstrated established chemical thrusters is the need for an
over 69,000 firings with a total of 4 hours burn ignition source. Incorporation of an ignition
time without noticeable degradation, achieving source may increase complexity or power
an Isp of 355 s. In the same program, a 0.5-N requirements and may not meet the stringent
thruster demonstrated over 150,000 firings and pulsing requirements of some low thrust rockets.
10 hours total burn time, with a performance of Spark ignition has been used extensively in
331 s. These tests showed that for these small previous GH2/GO2 thruster programs and is the
thrusters, optimal ignition was achieved at higher baseline for the X-33 thruster. Alternative
chamber pressures (>160 kPa), driving optimal ignition sources, including laser, resonance, and
designs to operate at higher tank and electrolysis catalytic ignition have also been investigated for
pressures. GHffGO2" 19 Ignition systems are being
investigated under technology programs for
Thrusters built for potential application as the upgrade of the Shuttle Orbiter RCS and manned
space station propulsion system (thrust levels lunar/Mars spacecraft, both of which will
from 110 to 220 N) have also been tested probably use oxygen/hydrocarbon propellants.

NASA TM-113157 5
Integrated Propulsion and Power polysulfone cell frames. The unit was designed to
Missions amenable to electrolysis propulsion can operate at pressures as high as 1 MPa. With the
gain from having both the electrolyzer and the water tower filled up to 15 cm, the total impulse
batteries replaced with a URFC. 7 In this case, the of this system was estimated to be 1000 N-s if an
weight of the unitized system is shared by the lsp of 330 s is assumed.
power and propulsion system thus providing a
savings over conventional systems. Recent Hydrogen, generated inside the electrolysis cell
results have demonstrated that URFCs are percolated to the top of the tower. A compression
capable of many energy storage cycles without fitting installed in the tower wall connected to a
significant degradation. 6 Results from recent 3.18-mm diameter propellant line, which
accelerated cycle testing are shown in Fig. 3 supplied hydrogen to a 300-cc storage tank, rated
along with a description of the single cell URFC for 20 MPa. Oxygen generated inside the
cycle test conditions. More than 2010 alternate electrolysis cell accumulated inside the base.
cycles of fuel cell (FC) and electrolyzer (EC) Another fitting in the side of the base connected
operation were accomplished at four different to a 3.18-mm diameter propellant line, supplying
power levels. Critical system parameters did not oxygen to a 150-cc storage tank. The tanks were
change over the course of the test, indicating that designed to assure nearly equal pressures based
life and also the system operated over a wide on the decomposition.
range.
Solenoid valves installed between the electrolysis
These results indicate that URFCs should be able unit and the storage tanks were opened during the
to power satellites through many thousands of electrolysis cycle and then closed during thruster
eclipse periods. Unlike battery power systems firing. The valve closing prevented water from
which require shallow depth of discharge to being drawn from the electrolysis tower into the
achieve long cycle life, URFC energy storage propellant lines by sudden depressurization
systems should be capable of deep discharges following ignition. This valve would be
throughout their entire service life. eliminated in a true flight design by the use of a
zero gravity compatible water vapor feed
Table I gives a summary of the status of the electrolyzer. Nitrogen purge lines between the
different technologies. All technologies have tanks and the electrolysis unit allowed the
demonstrated performance at NASA's propellants to be purged, exhausting through the
technology readiness level 4 or higher. rocket nozzle. This feature was only required in
ground testing.

Electrolysis Propulsion Breadboard Tests Sonic venturis installed inside the propellant
lines downstream of the storage tanks fixed the
As a proof of concept, a complete electrolysis propellant mass flow rates to the thruster. The
propulsion system was assembled. A schematic venturis were designed for specific mass flow
of the electrolysis breadboard system is shown in rates at inlet pressures of 0.68 MPa to achieve a
Fig. 4. For simplicity, power was obtained from a stochiometric mixture ratio of eight. However,
35 V power supply, to simulate the small the venturis were calibrated over a range of inlet
spacecraft bus. The maximum available power pressures. The mass flow rates, and thus the
was 700 W. The system was designed to operate chamber pressure, decreased during a blowdown
in blowdown mode (i.e. no regulators were used). test, as the inlet pressures vary from 1.0 to 0.5
A description of the system components follows. MPa. Calibration data assured that the venturis
were choked at all points during blowdown tests
In a flight qualified system, the electrolyzer used for these operating conditions.
would be a zero gravity compatible water vapor
feed electrolyzer. The electrolysis unit used in Opening of thruster valves, installed downstream
the current experiments, however, was not a of the venturis, caused the venturis to choke,
flight-type unit, but was a commercial, controlling hydrogen and oxygen mass flows to
percolating, cathode gravity liquid feed the injector. The injector available for these tests
electrolyzer provided by Hamilton Standard. was optimized for a 20-N thruster. As a result,
This unit consisted of a 5-cm diameter, 20-cm the injector did not provide optimum
high, plexiglass water tower on a 12.5-cm square, performance for the current tests, but was good
5- cm high base. The electrolysis cell was housed enough for the purpose of this study. The
in the base of the unit and was a 45.2-cm 2, oxygen was injected into a center annulus, where
platinized Nation 117 membrane with it was excited by a spark ignition system. Six

NASA TM-113157 6
smallslotsonthebackofahydrogen splitter
ring temperature.
Alldatawere recorded
withastand-
providedradial injectionof the "igniter alonedataacquisition
systemandstoredin a
hydrogen", whilesix elements cantedinward personal
computer.
providedhydrogen injection
furtherdownstream.
Nofilm coolingwasemployed. A 5-cmlong In additionto themeasured parameters,
some
water-cooled adapter, with a stainless steel additional
quantitieswerecalculated.
Propellant
boundary layertrip ring,provided additional flowratescouldbecalculated fromtheventuri
mixingandwasused tomount thechamber tothe inlet pressures,temperature,
and calibration.
injector. Both the theoreticaland experimental
characteristic
velocity
C*,whichisameasure of
Twochambers weretested withtheinjector.A combustionefficiency,
couldbedeterminedwith
copper heat-sink
chamber wasusedforcheckout standardmethods andusingtheCEC(chemical
of thesystem, andanIr/Rechamber wasthen equilibrium code)21for the givenpropellant
installedforthemajorityof testing.TheIr/Re mixtureratio.TheC* efficiency,
defined
asthe
chamber, designed
forI-Nthrust,consisted ofa ratio of experimental versus theoretical
8.98-mm diameterchamber anda 2.41-mm characteristic
velocity,
wasalsodetermined.
diameter throat.
Thenozzle expansion ratiowas
23.3.It hadpreviously
undergonelifetestingand In preparation for a series of tests, all air from
hadanaccumulated testtimeof 11.5hoursata the electrolysis unit, storage tanks, and propellant
mixtureratioof 5.Thecopperchamber hada lines was evacuated by means of opening the
similardiameter chamber,a 2.43mmdiameter valves to the high altitude environment. After
throat,but a slightlyshorterchamberand propellant system evacuation, the thruster valves
differentconverging
section. were closed, the supply valves opened, and
power was supplied to the electrolysis unit.
Thermocouples and pressure transducersat Hydrogen and oxygen were generated and the
selected
locations neartheelectrolysis
unit,the storage tanks were filled to a predetermined
storagetanks,andthethruster, wereusedto pressure of around 1 MPa. Different power levels
monitortemperature andpressure conditions. were applied at a number of electrolysis cycles in
Particle
filtersdownstreamof thestorage
tanks order to establish conversion efficiency
removed particleslargerthan15 micronto variations for varying propellant generation rates.
protectvalveseatsandinjectorports.Relief The duration of the propellant fill was between
valves
ratedat1.0MPanear theelectrolysis
unit twenty minutes and several hours, depending on
protectedtheunitfromoverpressurization
inthe the power level. Data were taken at five minute
caseofcomponent malfunction. intervals.

Experimental Approach A rocket firing followed each tank fill. Thruster-

The breadboard system was installed and tested valve opening and spark ignition initiated
inside the high altitude simulation test facility combustion. The lead time between the spark
described in Reference 20. Figure 5 is a ignition and the thruster valves opening was pre-
photograph of the test configuration. Ambient set. For most of the tests reported in this paper,
pressure in the altitude chamber during the test spark ignition and thruster valve opening
was maintained at approximately 1 kPa using a occurred simultaneously. Combustion chamber
two-stage ejector. Key data were obtained during pressures decreased during a typical blowdown
the testing of the breadboard propulsion system, test from 190 to 138 kPa. This range was
both during the propellant generation as well as selected as it bounds the design point of the
during the hot-fire test with the thruster. chamber (170 kPa). A typical test duration was
3-4 s, which was limited by the volume of the
Key parameters, measured and recorded during tanks and the maximum pressure allowed with
the electrolysis fill cycle, were tank pressures and the present electrolysis system. Hot-fire tests
temperatures, electrolysis pressure and were terminated after the chamber pressure
temperature, ambient pressure and temperature, dropped below a pre-set value, which was
and electrolysis current and voltage. The last two selected to provide an acceptable combustion
variables were determined by the available efficiency during this blowdown test. During hot-
power. Parameters recorded during hot-fire tests fire tests, data were taken at 100 ms intervals.
were the pressures and wall temperatures in the
combustion chamber, the pressure drop in the Test conditions varied during a sequence of hot-
tanks in 0.1 s increments, venturi inlet pressures fire tests as the result of changing system
and temperatures, and ambient pressure and conditions. The volume occupied by hydrogen

NASA TM-113157 7
consistedofthestorage tank,propellantlineand sccm, respectively, which correspond to 2, 5, and
headspaceinsidethe watertowerof the 10 A cell current. These cell currents translate to

electrolysis
unit.Thevolumeoccupied by the approximately 3, 8 and 16 W available power,
oxygenconsisted of thestorage tankandthe typical for small spacecraft. The horizontal axis
propellant
lines.During theinitialtankfill, from displays the pressure in the oxygen storage
highaltitudeambient upto 1 MPa,thepressure volume. The range displayed is from 0.6 to 1.0
insidethehydrogen tankincreased moreslowly MPa, approximately the pressure range when
thaninsidethe oxygentanks dueto the cycling between electrolysis charge and hot-fire
additional
headspace. Thepressure inbothtanks discharge. The vertical axis shows the power
remained steadyafterclosingthesupplyvalves. required. Fig. 6 shows that the required power
Thiscaused themixture ratioofthefirsthot-fire increases, as expected, with increasing storage
inatestsequence tobeoxygen rich(O/F-9.2). pressure, and that this increase is larger for
higher generation rates. These experiments
Because highpressure hydrogen wastrapped showed that the electrolysis conversion
insidetheelectrolysistower,thehydrogen tank efficiency decreased gradually with increasing
experienced anincreaseinpressure
each timethe pressure, as expected by theory, due to the
supplyvalveopened. Asa result,thepressure energy required for gas compression and to the
insidethehydrogen tankswashigher thaninthe internal hardware configuration. This pushes
oxygen tanksduringsubsequenttests,causing a design tradeoffs of an electrolysis propulsion
slightlyhydrogen richmixtureratio(O/F-7.6). system toward lower maximum electrolysis
About8 testsequences wererequired to reach pressure in order to maximize efficiency. The
marginal equilibrium conditions,
because the stepwise increase in Fig. 6a is due to the
space insidethewater towerchanged asa result characteristics of the data acquisition equipment.
of waterconsumption. Eventhoughconditions
changed slightlyduringcontinuingtesting, Increasing the input power leads to an increase in
chamber pressure,O/Fratios,andcharacteristic propellant generation rate. Fig. 7a shows the
velocitiesdidnotchange noticeably.
Throughout average power required as a function of oxygen
thefullcourse oftesting,thethrusterperformed generation rate. The vertical axis of this figure is
well. taken as the average power required between 0.6
and 1.0 MPa oxygen storage pressure. The figure
Electrolysis System Performance shows an approximately linear relationship
Key parameters during an electrolysis tank fill between input power and generation rate, with a
were the supplied voltage, the current through the value of 0.46 W/(sccm oxygen).
cells, the pressure build-up inside the oxygen and
hydrogen storage tanks, the electrolysis unit As was shown in Fig. 6, a difference exists
temperature, and the rate of propellant generation between power required at 0.6 MPa, and 1.0
(measured in total fill time to an oxygen tank MPa. This is displayed in Fig. 7b, which shows
pressure of 1 MPa). The electrolysis voltage that the absolute difference between power levels
provides a measure of cell conversion efficiency required at 0.6 MPa and 1.0 MPa increases with
This efficiency decreases with increasing cell increasing propellant generation rates. The
current and electrolysis pressure, and decreases average electrolyzer efficiency is defined as the
slightly with cell temperature. Cell voltage minimum power theoretically required for water
ranged from 1.47 V at 1 kPa and IA to 1.81 V at electrolysis divided by the actual power used.
1 MPa and 10 A. Electrolysis tests were The remaining power is rejected as heat. Typical
performed at a variety of different cell currents, efficiency values for electrolysis are between 85
from 2 to 10 A. The current was kept at a and 90%.
constant value during each test. The increasing
pressure inside the electrolysis unit during each Rocket Testing
test caused the cell voltage to gradually increase, As noted previously, initial rocket test sequences
requiring a slightly higher power for conversion were executed with a copper heat-sink chamber.
than at lower operating pressures. The constant Temperature, pressure, and propellant mixture
current assured a constant propellant generation ratio data were obtained to verify that test
rate. conditions remained within their expected
ranges. Typical copper combustion chamber
Fig. 6a, b, and c show the electrolysis power pressures are shown in Fig. 8 as a function of
required to maintain constant propellant time. At the initiation of testing, the thruster
generation rate with increasing pressure, for valves opened, the spark igniter was turned on,
oxygen generation rates of 7.5, 18.7, and 37.5 and the chamber pressure increased as the result

NASA TM-113157 8
of gas inflow. The first pressure increase was described, the first hot-fire test experienced a
detected after 100 ms. The likely cause of this high O/F ratio of 9.3 due to the higher oxygen
delay in measured pressure rise was slow tank pressure. This caused the oxygen mass flow
dynamics in the pressure sensing port inside the rate to be greater than stoichiometric. Therefore,
injector. During the next 100 ms, the pressure during the test, the O/F ratio dropped slightly.
increased to approximately 69 kPa. A slight Subsequent tests showed lower O/F values, with
(100-150 ms) hesitation was detected before an approximate equilibrium reached at an O/F of
ignition occurred. The pressure rise through 7.5. The variation in mixture ratio was caused by
ignition was not smooth. Such a "step" was the particular geometry used in the bench test,
undesirable for performance reasons. A similar where the hydrogen storage volume was more
step was found in testing at Marquardt with a than twice the oxygen storage volume. A
0.45 N thruster. 2 Further development under that configuration designed for optimum performance
program succeeded in eliminating this is not expected to show this large variation, but is
undesirable phenomenon by a redesign of the expected to operate at a nearly constant O/F of
ignitor. The step was present during both the --8.

copper chamber tests, and the lr/Re thruster tests,

suggesting that it was caused by the Fig. 9c shows the C* efficiency. It shows that the
injector/igniter design which was not optimized maximum C* efficiency was obtained after
for these laboratory experiments. approximately 1.2 s. This indicated that a
significant fraction of the propellant mass was
Ignition occurred at approximately 250 ms after expelled before optimum conditions were
test initiation, after which the pressure increased reached. The maximum C* efficiency was
sharply until hot test equilibrium conditions were approximately 0.79. This level of performance
reached. Subsequently, the chamber pressure was expected as the result of the non-optimized
decreased as the propellant supply pressures design of injector, water-cooled adapter section,
decrease and less mass flowed into the chamber. and chamber.

Fig. 9a show typical combustion chamber The thruster was designed for optimum
pressures during the Ir/Re thruster tests. All of performance at 170 kPa chamber pressure. This
the hot-fire tests show the same step in was reached at approximately 1.5 s, which is
combustion chamber pressure increase that was indeed where the maximum combustion
shown in Fig. 8. Again this was attributed to the efficiency is obtained. After this maximum, the
fact that the ignition was not optimized. Such a combustion efficiency decreases as the chamber
step should not present an issue in a flight type pressure decreases and the conditions move away
system. As a result of slightly different chamber from optimum. External chamber wall
dimensions in the Ir/Re thruster, as compared to temperatures did not exceed 1800 °F.
the copper chamber, the cold gas pressure
buildup reached a higher pre-ignition equilibrium
level, -78 vs. -68 kPa; and at a later stage, -400 Summary
ms vs. -200 ms. Ignition always occurred, with
delays varying from 50 to 150 ms. The ignition Electrolysis propulsion has been recognized as
delay is shown in Fig. 9a. Pressure rise after an attractive option for satellite and spacecraft
ignition was slow. A maximum pressure between over the decades, but has not yet been used for
173 kPa and 190 kPa, depending on mixture in-space missions. Recent advances in water
ratio, was reached -1 s after test initiation. After vapor feed electrolysis, propellant tankage,
thruster chamber materials, and fuel cell
that, the chamber pressure gradually dropped as
the result of decreasing propellant supply technology warrants renewed consideration for

pressures and thus mass flow rates. The hot-fire, the electrolysis propulsion option. An electrolysis
low-pressure abort limit for this specific series of propulsion system would generate GH2/GO2
tests was set to 136 kPa, which ended the tests. propellants, without the need for a pressurization
The abort limit was selected to provide an system, pumps, or compressors. The gaseous
acceptable combustion efficiency during propellant tanks can be sized for the largest burn
blowdown tests. This was corroborated by required for the mission, with the bulk of the
alternate test series done with abort limits of 68 propellant stored as water until needed.
kPa and 34 kPa.
Electrolysis propulsion would provide higher

Fig. 9b shows the propellant mixture ratio (O/F performance than the established chemical
ratio) during the series of tests. As previously propulsion options and at the same thrust levels.

NASA TM-113157 9
Furthermore, the water propellantgreatly References
simplifiesground loading and servicing
1Wilson, A., Jane's Space Directory, 12 Ih Ed.
requirements and eliminatesmanyof the
handling compatibility
concerns of toxicearth 1996-1997, Jane's Information Group Ltd.,

storablepropellants.
Therealattractivenessof Sentinel House, Surrey, England, UK, 1994,

electrolysis
propulsion
mightbetheabilityto pp.334.
servein thedualroleof propulsion andpower
generation.
Thetankage in thisunitizedsystem 2Myers, R.M., Oieson, S.R., Curran, F.M., and

canalsoprovidesome,if not mostof the Schneider, S.J., "Chemical and Electrical

structurerequiredby spacecraft that must Propulsion Options for Small Satellites,"

function
asastiffinstrumentplatform.Aunitized Proceedings of the 8 th AIAA Utah State

electrolysis/fuel
cellunit wouldprovidehigh University Conference on Small Satellites, Aug.

performance propellantsfor propulsion and 29- Sept. 1, 1994.

generatepower.Thismightbeacriticalfunction
3Sutherland, G. S., and Maes, M. E.: "A
fordeepplanetary missions,wheresolarpower
willbecome morescarceasthemission proceeds Review of Microrocket Technology: 10 -6 to 1 lbf

andwhereloadlevelingcanbe animportant Thrust," J. Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 3, No.

asset. 8, August 1966.

Thestateof the technology for the components 4Newman, D. P., "Water electrolysis reaction

of a flight-type system were discussed and a control system," 7th Liquid Propulsion

propulsion breadboard system was assembled. A Symposium, Chemical Propulsion Information

series of cycles with alternate propellant Agency Publ. 72, ppl05-114, Oct. 1965.
generation by means of water electrolysis and
subsequent hot-fire thruster tests was 5Stechman, R.C., Campbell, J.G. "Water
demonstrated on this breadboard system. Electrolysis Satellite Propulsion System," The

Hydrogen and oxygen produced during the Marquardt Company, Technical Report AFRPL-

electrolysis process were stored inside small, TR-72-132, January, 1973.

high pressure tanks. The thruster used was a high

temperature, oxidation resistant, rhenium- 6Mitlitsky, F., Myers, B., and Weisberg, A.H.,
iridium, 1 N chamber, attached to a workhorse "Lightweight pressure vessels and unitized
injector by means of a water-cooled adapter regenerative fuel cells," 1996 Fuel Cell Seminar,
section. November 17-20, 1996, Orlando, FL; UCRL-JC-
125220 and UCRL-MI- 125220.

Oxygen to hydrogen mixture ratios varied

between 7.5 and 9.5, with highest C* efficiency 7McElroy, J.F., "Unitized regenerative fuel

at the lowest mixture ratio as expected. The cell storage system for aircraft and orbital

proof-of-concept test bed that was not designed applications," UTC Hamilton Standard div.,

and optimized for performance had a maximum Rept. BD94-02, March 1994.

C* efficiency of 79%. Optimization of thruster

SMitlitsky, F., de Groot, W.A., Butler, L., and
design will generate significantly better
performance than those of state of the art McElroy, J.F., "Integrated Modular Propulsion

bipropellents. and Regenerative Electro-Energy Storage

System (IMPRESS)for Small Satellites," 10th
annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small
The tests described in this paper showed the
fundamental feasibility of the unitized propulsion Satellites, September 16-19, 1996, Logan, UT
84322.
and power concept. URFC cycle tests and
electrolysis propulsion tests demonstrated that
9Fanciullo, T.J., and Judd, D.C., "Long Life
the system worked as anticipated. A fully
functional unitized propulsion and power system Reaction Control System Design," AIAA

featuring a water vapor feed URFC is needed to Aerospace Design Conference, AIAA Paper 92-

demonstrate the great advancements that can be 0964, Irvine, CA, February 16-19, 1993.

made using this technology.

NASA TM-113157 10
 1°Campbell,
J.G.,andStechman,
R.C.,"System 2°Arrington, L.A. and Schneider, S.J., "LOw
Testing, Water Electrolysis Propulsion, " Thrust Rocket Test Facility," AIAA Paper 90-
AFRPL-TR-74-72, The Marquardt Co., Nov. 2503, Orlando, FL, 1990.
1974.
Z_Gordon, S., and McBride, B., "Computer
l_Jane's Spaceflight Directory, 1987 Ed., Program for Calculation of Complex Chemical
Jane's Publ. Co. Ltd, London, New York, pp. 65- Equilibrium Composition, Rocket Performance,
67, 1987. Incident and Reflected Shocks, and Chapman-
Jouget Detonations," NASA SP-273, March
t2MOOG Space Products Division, Miniature 1976.
Latching Solenoid Valve Data Sheets, 1996

13Reed, B. D. and Schneider, S. J.: Table I: Demonstrated Technology Readiness

"HydrogenOxygen Auxiliary Propulsion Levels.
Technology, " AIAA Paper 91-3440, NASA TM-
105249, September 1991. Element NASA Comments
TRL
14Rollbuhler, R. J.: "Experimental SPE Fuel Cell Level 9 Gemini & Biosat.
Performance of a Water Electrolysis Rocket," SPE Level 6 Air Force Program
NASA TM X-1737, 1968. Electrolyzer
SPE URFC Level 4 2010 Laboratory
15Richter, G. P. and Price, H. G., "Proven, Cycles
Long-Life HydrogenOxygen Thrust Chambers Demonstrated
for Space Station Propulsion, " JANNAF @ LLNL
Propulsion Meeting, New Orleans, Aug. 1986. Gas Dryers Level 4 JSC Program
See also NASA TM-88822.
GH2/GO2 NASA and DOD
Thrusters Programs
J61acabucci, R. S., et al.: "Space Station Level 8-9
• Valves
Technology Summary," 1989 JANNAF Level 6
• Combustion
Propulsion Meeting, Vol. I, CPIA Publ. 515,
Chamber
1989.
• Ignition Level 4

Graphite Level 4 Solar Rechargeable

17Schoenman, L.: "4000 °F for Low Thrust
Bladder Aircraft & DOE &
Rocket Engines," AIAA Paper 93-2406, June
Tankage Ford
1993.

tSReed, B. D., "Long-Life Testing of Oxide-

Coated Iridium/Rhenium Rockets," 31 st Joint
Propulsion Conference, AIAA Paper 95-2401,
June, 1995.

19Reed, B.D. and Schneider, S.J.,

"Hydrogen/Oxygen Auxiliary Propulsion
Technology," NASA TM-105249, AIAA Paper
91-3440, presented at the Conference on
Advanced Space Exploration Initiative
Technologies, Cleveland, OH, September 4-6,
1991.

NASA TM-113157 11
 I_yload

Thruster

Figure 1: Integrated Modular Propulsion and Regenerative Electro-Energy Storage System (IMPRESS)

TVC
+ Pitch
W'7

Regulator TVC _.,_ _ x-,,,_ TVC

/"3- ..............................
"_-'\ _ y L=._
: io2stora ,e nk! .......................... Latch
TVC
- Pitch
I [] Latch

.' _ _ '- T Latch l_'-l._ i + Rich

( } Water Tank i _-J---_ ............I11 I ,_ _,1

'\ i i/<' _ LJ_S.:_ ,._ /,,v I
......................................... E_c_lyzer ' \ / i
/._,:... I,W o,uR_c I , i ._,,i_ ,=(I - Yaw_l_ Yaw

r : 't ".\" = I ] - Pitch + l°ll_ l i

\! i H2Storaoetankl,_- -r _ j N/ I ,,.+ao,>. - Pitch

Figure 2: Schematic of Dual-Mode Electrolysis Propulsion System

NASA TM-113157 12
 2.1 2.1
2.0 • 2.0
• •O •
1.9 • • m
• EC @ 344 mA/cm2 1.9
1.8 • EC @ 258 mA/cm2 1.8
1.7 " ' " - EC @ 172 mA/cm2 1.7
1.6 _ " _ EC @ 86 mA/cm2 1.6
1.5 Active Area 46 cm2 1.5
1.4 Nation 117, E-5TM catalyst 1.4
1.3 Inlet Temperature 322 K 1.3
0.38 MPa H2 / H20 Vapor
1.2 0.45 MPa 02 / H20 Vapor 1.2
1.1 300 =me FC 0108 mA/cm2 1.1
1.0 300 sec EC @258 mA/cm2 1.0
0,9 I I I I I , , ' J FC @ 43 mA/cm2 0.9
0.8 eO• • •
• " • ° FC @ 108 mA/cm2 0.8
-_'_ D 0
0.7 [] D [] " FC @ 172 mAJcm2 0.7
&AA _ A
0.6 A " FC @ 237 mA/cm2 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 ii1|Ii '' ' _ .... _ ' ' ' : : 0.4
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Cycle Number (600 sec ! cycle)

Figure 3: Measured Performance as a Function of Cycle Number for a Single Cell URFC

__ Io Lxisting Regulated

Nitrogen Purge Supply

Hydrogen

/ m
Ton_
olysis

High temperature
Oxidation Resistant
I Tank 1.0 N Thruster

Legend: I:_ Solenoid Valve l-_

Thermocouple
Relief Valve Particle Filter

Check Valve Propellant Tank

Pressure Transducer
_F Flow Venturi

Figure 4: Water Electrolysis Propulsion System Breadboard Schematic

NASA TM-113157 13
 A
8.70 _b /v_

A
A
- A
8.68 A
_A
A
8.66 - A
AA
A
Q. A
c 8.64 -
m

A
A Oxygen Generation
A
8.62 -A Rate: 18.7 seem
Figure
5:Photograph
ofElectrolysis
Propulsion
Breadboard
Installed
Inside
HighAltitude I I I I I
Chamber 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Oxygen Pressure (MPa)

3.36 18.10
a A
C

A
/ '/)z/)z
¢//_
A
18.05
A
3.35 /'dT)TY)TY',_
t._
O
A
3: Z_3 A
O
O. A
= 3.34 A
=,-
D. m
A
17.95 - A
A
Oxygen Generation A Oxycjen
Rate: 7.5 sccm Rate: 37.5 SCORn
I 1 I I I 17.90 I I I I I
3.33
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Oxygen Pressure (MPa)

Oxygen Pressure (MPa)

Figure 6: Average Electric Power Required to

Maintain Constant Propellant Generation Rate at
Increasing Pressures. 02 Generation Rates:
a) 7.5 sccm; b) 18.7 sccm; c) 37.5 sccm.

NASA TM-113157 14
 20
a 0.20

D.
15
O
Q. i.._ 0.15

Q. 10
t- O
i.._

i-.
0.10
Ignition Delay
t_
W
5 A Power Required: .Q
A 0.458 Wl$ccm 02 E
I i I I I __I i i i
0.05
5 10 152025303540 o 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Oxygen Generation Rate (seem) time (sec)

9.5
0.15

9.0
I-

O
,m
_o 0.10 w 8.5
IX
ii
a.
O 8.0
.E 0.05

7.5
2
I I I I L ]
= 0.00 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
).0
5 10 152025303540
time (see)
Oxygen Generation Rate (seem)

0.8
Figure 7: Electrolysis Power Characteristics as a
Function of Propellant Generation Rate: a)
Average Power Required; b) Difference in Power
Required at 0.6 and 1.0 MPa Pressure. 0.6
o
¢;
0.15
I -<3--
/-_-
13439_88
t__9o
.e
0
_ D439_94 0.4
| -_- D439__ U_
_.^ / _ t_,a0 aa 4¢

o
0.2

L L [
0
n 0.05 0,0 0.5 1.0 1,5 2.0
_" 0.10 _oo time (see)

Figure 9: b/Re Thruster Test Results: a)

0.00 _ I I _ L

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Combustion Chamber Pressure; b) Propellant
Mixture Ratio; c) C* Efficiency.
time (see)

Figure 8: Copper Combustion Chamber

Pressures for a Series of Hot-Fire Tests.

NASA TM-113157 15
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188

Publicreporting burden for thiscollectionof informationis estimated to average1 hour per response,includingthe time for reviewinginstructions, searchingexistingdata sources,
gatheringand maintainingthe data needed,and completingand reviewingthe collectiono'1information.Sendcommentsregarding thisburdenestimateor any otheraspect of this
collectionof information,includingsuggestionsfor reducing thisburden,to WashingtonHeack:luarters Services, Directoratefor InformationOperationsand Reports, 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highway,Suite 1204, Arlington,VA 22202-4302,and to the Officeof Managementand Budget, PaperworkReductionProject(0704-0188), Washington,DC 20503

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 13. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

October 1997 Technical Memorandum

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Electrolysis Propulsion for Spacecraft Applications

WU-632-1B-1B-00
6. AUTHOR(S)

Wim A. de Groot, Lynn A. Arrington, James F. McElroy, Fred Mitlitsky,

Andrew H. Weisberg, Preston H. Carter I1, Blake Myers, and Brian D. Reed

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Lewis Research Center E- 10907
Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESB(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA TM-113157
Washington, DC 20546-0001
AIAA-97-2948

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Prepared for the 33rd Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit cosponsored by AIAA, ASME, SAE, and ASEE, Seattle, Washington, July 6-9,
1997. Wim A. de Groot and Lynn A. Arrington, NYMA, Inc., 2001 Aerospace Parkway, Brook Park, Ohio 44142 (work funded by NASA
Contract NAS3-27186); James E McElroy, Hamilton Standard, Windsor Locks, Connecticut; Fred Mitlitsky, Andrew H. Weisberg, Preston H.
Carter II, and Blake Myers, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California; Brian D. Reed NASA Lewis Research Center.
Responsible person, Wim A. de Groat, organization code 5400, (216) 977-7485.
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Unclassified

Subject Category: 72 Distribution: Nonstandard

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, (301) 6214)390.
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Electrolysis propulsion has been recognized over the last several decades as a viable option to meet many satellite and

spacecraft propulsion requirements. This technology, however, was never used for in-space missions. In the same time
frame, water based fuel cells have flown in a number of missions. These systems have many components similar to
electrolysis propulsion systems. Recent advances in component technology include: lightweight tankage, water vapor feed

electrolysis, fuel cell technology, and thrust chamber materials for propulsion. Taken together, these developments make
propulsion and/or power using electrolysis/fuel cell technology very attractive as separate or integrated systems. A water

electrolysis propulsion testbed was constructed and tested in a joint NASA/Hamilton Standard/Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratories program to demonstrate these technology developments for propulsion. The results from these
testbed experiments using a 1-N thruster are presented. A concept to integrate a propulsion system and a fuel cell system
into a unitized spacecraft propulsion and power system is outlined.

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

14. SUBJECT TERMS
21
Electrolysis; Propulsion; Satellite 16. PRICE CODE
A03

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIRCATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified

NSN 7540_1-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18
298-102