Proceeding of the 11-th ASAT Conference, 17-19 May 2005 PR-01 411

Military Technical College 11-th International Conference

40. ‘
Kobry El-Kobba, S A T-T- on Aerospace Sciences &
Cairo, Egypt Aviation Technology

MODELLING OF MONOPROPELLANT
SPACE PROPULSION SYSTEM

A.A.Hashem'

ABSTRACT

Monopropellant thrusters still have a role to play in orbit insertion of small satellites
whenever a sizable thrust is required. A new preliminary design analysis
methodology is adopted. Two monopropellant catalyst bed reactor models are
employed. The first model divides the flow into liquid, liquid-vapor, and vapor
regimes. Each regime is divided into pore and free stream levels. This model is
basically used off line to estimate the liquid phase regime behavior. A second model,
which assumes the propellant to be readily vaporized, is used to predict the
performance of the vaporized regime grossly on the free stream level. The analysis is
conducted for a blow-down type feed system. A case study is presented employing
hydrazine as a monopropellant. The results point out a collective impact of the tank
pressure on minimum system mass. The optimum tank pressure is influenced by the
bed loading and blowdown ratio. The technological complexity may have a vital
impact on the choice of the bed loading and blowdown ratio.

KEY WORDS
Space propulsion, monopropellant, thruster, catalytic bed reactor

Associate Professor, Aerospace Dept., Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

Proceeding of the 11-th ASAT Conference, 17-19 May 2005 PR-01 412

NOMENCLATURE

A Area [m2] SG Specific gravity

B Blowdown ratio Temperature [K]
Cd Discharge coefficient p Density [kg/m3]
CF Thrust coefficient Subscripts
G Bed loading [kg/(s.m2)] c Combustion
90 Standard gravitational acceleration [m/s2] f Final
Total impulse (N.s] Initial
Isp Specific impulse [s] inj Injector
K„ Valve coefficient [m3/hr] L Liquid
m Mass [kg] pr Propellant
m Mass flow rate [kg/s1 th Throat
P Pressure [N/m1 tk Tank
Q Volume flow rate [m3/hr] v Valve

1. INTRODUCTION

For a range of relatively low total impulse, the monopropellant system has
competitive system mass regardless of having lower specific impulse than
conventional bipropellant systems. The relative simplicity and low temperature gases
of monopropellant systems result in a high reliability. In addition, it produces clean
exhaust, and hence has low contamination hazards to other satellite sub systems.

Kesten [1] developed an analytical model for the decomposition process of

monopropellant thrusters. It considers both thermal and catalytic decomposition of
reactants along with simultaneous heat and mass transfer between the free
streamgas phase and the gas within the pores of the catalyst beds. Sangiovanni and
Kesten [2] added to the previous model capillary and viscous forces to predict the
residence time of liquid reactant in the catalyst particle. Earlier, Schmitz et al [3]
focused on experimentation to obtain reactor design and performance correlations.

Smith and Kesten [4] divided the flow into liquid regime, liquid-vapor regime and
vapor regime. They considered the free stream and catalyst pellet levels. The model
assumed heterogeneous (catalytic) decomposition in the pore of liquid, liquid-vapor
regimes and at the catalyst surface of the vapor regime, but the homogeneous
(thermal) decomposition of hydrazine was modeled through the voids of vapor regime
only. The heterogeneous decomposition of the product ammonia was neglected in
the liquid and liquid—vapor regimes, where the temperature is relatively low. The
Smith model employed an implicit integral scheme. Michales [5] adopted a similar
mathematical model but an iterative finite difference method was employed.

Fig. 1 shows a typical layout of monopropellant hydrazine catalytic bed reactor. The
chemically reacting flow in such reactor is a very complicated multi-aspect problem,
involving flow, mass diffusion, chemical reaction and heat transfer. While the use of a
detailed model is warranted for the final design check, an extensive preliminary
analysis may be efficiently conducted by a proper mix between simple and detailed
Proceeding of the 11-th ASAT Conference, 17-19 May 2005 PR-01 413

models. Despite the lack of some absolute accuracy, it is believed that the relative
difference in performance is what matters in the preliminary design phase.

It is the intention of this work to introduce a computer package based on this

philosophy. To tackle such problem two models were considered with increased
degree of detail and sophistication. The first model assumes the hydrazine to leave
the injector in a vaporized state, whereas the second model considers the injected
hydrazine to be in the liquid state [6].

2. MODELING OF HYDRAZINE CATALYTIC BED REACTOR

2.1 Vaporized hydrazine steady state 1D plug flow model

This is a one-dimensional, steady state, adiabatic, plug-flow model based on the

following hydrazine monopropellant reactions

N2H4 —> NH3 +0.5N2 +0.5H2 (1)

NH3 —> 0.5N2 +1.5H2 (2)

The liquid hydrazine is assumed to evaporate instantaneously. Four material balance-

rate equations, energy balance equation, and Ergun empirical relation expressing the
pressure gradient along the catalyst bed are used to describe the decomposition
process [6].

2.2 General hydrazine catalytic bed model

A similar model to that of [5,7] is adopted here. However, in this model, the governing
equations describing the flow in the reactor free stream and in the catalyst particle
pore accounts for the conductive heat term in the fluid at the free stream. On the
other hand it disregards the heat conduction in the catalyst bed structure of the
reactor.

In the liquid—vapor regime the new model divides each element of that regime into
two regimes: liquid regime and vapor regime consisting of a mixture of gases. Both of
the homogeneous and heterogeneous decomposition of hydrazine are considered in
the vapor-element and a part of the heat released from the vapor-element is devoted
to vaporize the liquid-element and the remaining part raises the vapor-element
temperature. This allowed the temperature, pressure, and hydrazine concentration to
vary throughout this regime. The new model solves the coupled pore diffusion
conservation equations with an iterative finite difference method.

3. PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF MONOPROPELLANT SYSTEM

This analysis is concerned with the preliminary design of monopropellant systems. A

blowdown feed system is considered. The nature of operation dictates that the
Proceeding of the 11-th ASAT Conference, 17-19 May 2005 PR-01 414

blowdown system operates in an off design mode. During its burning time the
operating conditions and performance vary considerably between initial and final
states. This in turn puts severe conditions on the design process since the system
has to operate properly throughout a wide operating range.

The objective of this analysis is to determine the effect of the design parameters on
the performance leading to an optimum selection of such parameters. The main
design parameters are the initial tank pressure or initial catalyst bed inlet pressure,
the tank blowdown ratio (B = P,, /P, ) or final tank pressure, the catalyst bed
geometry including length and diameter or bed loading (mass flow rate per unit
catalytic bed cross sectional area), and the nozzle expansion ratio.

3.1 System Components

During the mission as the propellant is consumed the pressurant expands into the
tank. This expansion is somewhere between isothermal (for very long system
operation) and close to adiabatic (for very short system operation). The tank initial
pressure, for a specified geometry and nozzle back pressure, determines the
pressure at the various system locations. The tank volume is estimated from the
volume occupied by the propellant and pressurant gas. Both are related by the
blowdown ratio. At any time instant the pressure in the tank is obtained by tracing the
pressurant gas volume and using the dynamic continuity and energy equations.

The feed system is presented in Fig. 2. each element produces certain pressure loss.
In general, the pressure loss in the piping system is small in comparison with that
encountered in the main components such as control valves, injector, catalyst bed
and the nozzle.

The solenoid valve pressure loss is given by

Q
AP, = (—)2sG (3)

where, AP, is the valve pressure drop in bars.

K, is the valve coefficient as specified by solenoid valve manufacturers.

In order for the hydrazine droplets to cover the catalyst bed cross sectional area with
an acceptable mass mean diameter (MMD) a circular solid cone simplex injector [8] is
selected. This type has a reasonable cone angle (in the order of 50° ). In addition, to
maintain injection quality (MMD< 1000 u ), a minimum pressure differential across the
injector of 1.25 bar has been enforced. Such minimum takes place at the end of
mission. The mass flow rate across the injector is given by.

rhp, = C,Aifl;.j2pL APini (4)

Proceeding of the 11-th ASAT Conference, 17-19 May 2005 PR-01 415

It is assumed that liquid flow pressure loss along the catalyst bed is small compared
to the gaseous pressure losses. This loss is obtained using Ergun empirical equation,
which evaluates the pressure gradient along the vapor regime of the bed. The
stagnation pressure loss is then evaluated by integrating along the vapor regime
length.

The results of the detailed model show that the liquid regime length depends on the
inlet stagnation temperature, pressure and bed loading. The liquid-vapor regime
length is relatively very short. The length required to achieve the maximum
temperature in the vapor regime is also small, subsequently the temperature drops
due to dissociation. The total bed length is estimated, as the longest length required
at the most adverse conditions, fortunately these are the initial conditions. The length
of the liquid regime is evaluated from the detailed model. An off-line parametric study
is conducted to evaluate the dependence of the liquid regime length on the bed inlet
conditions and bed loading. These parameters vary during the mission, leading to
significant changes in the liquid regime length. Consequently the length of the vapor
regime is estimated as the difference between the total bed length and the
instantaneous liquid regime length.

3.2 System Matching

The choice of the design parameters defines the system state. However, in this case
they do so in an indirect way, hence the procedure is iterative. A main 'dependent'
parameter is the nozzle throat area. Based on the nozzle inlet operating conditions,
the throat area is used to size the thruster in order to meet the target thrust.

Obtaining a solution for a set of design parameters is an interrelated and iterative

process. Some of the dependent parameters have to be manipulated in order to meet
the overall performance and constraints. The total propellant mass required to
perform the mission has been initially estimated by

mpr = I /(g ) (5)

where, lsp is approximately given by [9]

lsp = 0.00258) (6)

The value obtained by equation 5 is subsequently corrected as a more accurate

analysis predicts the specific impulse.

Before carrying out the full mission analysis, the initial and final state performance is
checked for proper conditions within the system at these two extremes. If the results
are not acceptable one or more of the dependent parameters may be altered. If the
thrust is specified at the initial time, another check is conducted to ensure that the
required initial thrust is met. The nozzle throat area may have to be adjusted to
satisfy this requirement.
Proceeding of the 11-th ASA T Conference, 17-19 May 2005 PR-01 416

The procedure followed to satisfy the flow continuity along the system at any instant
of time starts by assuming an initial value of the mass flow rate. This allows the feed
system losses up to the injector to be estimated, which in turn determines the catalyst
bed inlet conditions. The off line results of the detailed catalyst bed model are used
to predict the inlet conditions to the 1D quasi-steady 'simple' model, which is solved
for the bed outlet conditions. The nozzle mass flow rate is finally estimated and
compared with the assumed value of the mass flow rate. Table 1 gives the required
inputs to the main module and lists the output parameters.

Tablel . Main module inputs-outputs.

Input: Design parameters Output: Performance parameters
• Tank pressure •Total propellant mass
•Blowdown ratio •Tank volume
•Bed loading •Mass of pressurant gas
•Nozzle expansion ratio •Valve orifice diameter
•Catalyst bed dimensions (length, diameter)
•Nozzle configuration (throat, exit diameters,
nozzle length)
Time variation of system parameters:
• Tank pressure.
• Injector differential pressure.
• Length of liquid and vapor regimes
inside catalyst.
• Catalyst bed pressure losses.
• Propellant mass.
• Specific impulse.
• Thrust.
• Mass flow rate.

After the usable propellant Mass is consumed, both the transient performance and
overall performance parameters are reviewed. If the total impulse is not met the
propellant mass must be adjusted and the whole process is repeated.

3.3 Preliminary Design Case Study

The propulsion system mission is specified by the total impulse and initial thrust. In
this case study a total impulse of 24000 N.s and an initial thrust of 10 N are
considered. The preliminary design analysis investigates the effects of the design
parameters on the system performance and configuration. To investigate the
variations in system mass due to changes in the design parameters a reference case
is chosen as:

Nozzle expansion ratio = 200

Initial tank pressure = 1 [MN/m2]
Blowdown ratio = 2
Bed loading = 10 [kg/(s. m2)]
Proceeding of the 11-th ASA T Conference, 17-19 May 2005 PR-01 417

The variation of any single parameter is indicated on the figures, while the remaining
parameters maintain their reference values.

3.3.1 Nozzle expansion ratio

The specific impulse tends to increase with the nozzle expansion ratio. This increase
is remarkable at low values of nozzle expansion ratios, and then approaches
asymptotically a maximum theoretical limit. This increase reduces the propellant
mass. Using basic definitions the specific impulse can be expressed as

. • Pc
_ [ A01 C,
Iso (7)
rn,fic go
The first term is basically constant due to nozzle choking. The outlet temperature
demonstrates weak dependence on the remaining design parameters within their
practical range. Hence, the specific impulse is highly dependent on the nozzle
expansion ratio.

Assuming constant nozzle wall thickness, and since low stresses are encountered,
Fig. 3 shows that increasing the expansion ratio almost linearly increases the nozzle
mass. The figure also indicates the interactive effects of the remaining design
parameters on the nozzle mass. This stems from their effect on the nozzle throat
area required to meet the specified initial thrust.

The effect of nozzle expansion ratio on the total system mass, referred to that at an
expansion ratio of 25, is presented in Fig. 4. For the combination of the other three
design parameters, the effect of nozzle expansion ratio is basically similar. From this
figure it is clear that, under these conditions, there is a broad optimum nozzle
expansion ratio. Nozzles with high area ratio may have problems associated with
very low pressures, which may invalidate the continuum flow model and/or suffer
appreciable condensation. This may favor lower values of expansion ratios.

3.3.2 Tank pressure

Figure 5 shows the effect of tank pressure on tank mass, at different blowdown ratios.
The tank stress and mass tend to increase with the tank pressure. However, at low
tank pressures, handling and manufacturing considerations place a limit on the
minimum thickness that can be used. Thus, at low tank pressure the tank mass does
not change with pressure. The reduction in tank mass with the increase in blowdown
ratio is due to the decrease in the pressurant gas volume.

A reduction of the tank pressure results in a reduced nozzle inlet pressure and hence
the nozzle throat area must be increased to pass the required initial mass flow rate.
This leads to a larger and heavier nozzle as indicated by Fig. 6. Below critical tank
pressure the nozzle mass increases sharply. This takes place when the combination
of inlet pressure and bed loading of the catalyst bed produces very high pressure
Proceeding of the 11-th ASA T Conference, 17-19 May 2005 PR-01 418

drop across the bed, which leads to very low nozzle pressure and large nozzle throat.
It can be concluded from Figs. 5 and 6 that the tank pressure must lie between high
values corresponding to excessive tank mass, and a minimum corresponding to
excessive nozzle mass. These two points are dependent on the blowdown ratio. An
optimum tank pressure may be obtained for each blowdown ratio minimizing the sum
of the tank and nozzle masses.

3.3.3 Bed loading

By its own the bed loading has insignificant effect on both the propellant and tank
masses. Its most notable effects are on bed losses and injector pressure drop. The
bed losses increase proportional to the square of the bed loading. Due to the
imposed minimum injector pressure drop at the end of the mission, the bed loading
has a pronounced effect. Assuming constant discharge coefficient and since the
initial mass flow rate is nearly constant we can show that

AP..
Lnj,1 prf 2 (8)

As the final nozzle inlet pressure decreases considerably, the final mass flow rate is
also reduced to match the nozzle choking conditions. The proportionality (8) indicates
then that the initial pressure drop through the injector increases as shown in Fig. 8.
This increase reduces the initial nozzle inlet pressure. To fulfill the required initial
thrust a larger nozzle throat area must be used increasing the nozzle mass.

Fig. 8 presents the bed loading effect on nozzle mass. From catalyst bed
performance, there is a minimum allowable initial tank pressure for each bed loading
beyond which a steep rise in catalyst bed pressure drop takes place. This
necessitates a large throat diameter and mass. This sharp rise in nozzle mass at a
critical bed loading is also reflected on the total mass as indicated by Fig. 9.

Figure 8 shows that at constant bed loading and tank pressure, increasing the
blowdown ratio causes the nozzle mass to increase. This is a consequence of the
reduction in final tank pressure. As mentioned earlier this leads to a reduction in final
mass flow rate and an increase in injector initial pressure drop, which in turn
increases the pressure loss across the catalytic bed, and a larger nozzle throat is
required. Hence the value of the critical bed loading for each tank pressure depends
on the blowdown ratio. It may be concluded (see also Fig. 9) that the blowdown ratio
shifts both the critical and optimum values of the bed loading.

Figure 10 presents the relation between the critical bed loading and tank pressure for
different values of blowdown ratio. The maximum bed loading increases with tank
pressure and decreases with the blowdown ratio.

The bed loading is the decisive parameter in specifying the catalyst bed diameter.
Practical considerations set a limit on the minimum bed diameter to facilitate
machining of bed components, with no significant gain in system mass. This may
impose another limit on the maximum bed loading.
Proceeding of the 11-th ASAT Conference, 17-19 May 2005 PR-01 419

3.3.4 Blowdown ratio

Increasing the blowdown ratio the initial pressurant volume decreases and hence the
tank volume and mass are reduced, Fig. 11. The figure also shows that the nozzle
mass increases with the blowdown ratio. The nozzle mass being relatively small the
total system mass follows the tank mass behavior.

The injector may constrain the performance in terms of coverage and atomization
quality. Also, for the involved low mass flow rates, the available technology level for
manufacturing the injector elements may restrict the injector dimensions. Thus, the
injector port diameter is included as a measure for technological complexity level.
Figures 12-a, 12-b give the variation of total system mass against the injector orifice
diameter for variable blowdown ratio, bed loading and initial tank pressure. To
estimate the injector orifice a constant discharge coefficient of 0.75 has been
assumed.

Figures12-a, 12-b show that, for specified bed loading and blowdown ratio, there is
an optimum tank pressure producing minimum system mass. The optimum tank
pressure increases with the bed loading and also with the blowdown ratio.

The effect of tank pressure on injector orifice diameter is conflicting, depending on

the values of the bed loading and blowdown ratio. Fig. 12-a shows that, at relatively
low loading, increasing the tank pressure decreases the injector orifice diameter,
whereas Fig. 12-b shows that, at relatively high bed loading and low blowdown ratios,
increasing the tank pressure increases injector orifice diameter.

As indicated by proportionality 8, the initial injector pressure drop is inversely

proportional to the square root of the final propellant mass flow rate. This mass flow
rate is in turn proportional to (Ath•Pih.final). It is the variation in this term that explains
the difference in behavior of the injector orifice diameter with tank pressure at
different bed loading. The increase in tank pressure increases Ath, but P • th.final is
reduced. At high bed loading the throat area has the dominant effect, leading to
higher final propellant mass flow rate and hence lower injector pressure drop. This
increases the injector orifice diameter. The whole scenario is reversed at low bed
loading.

Increasing the bed loading, within the relevant range, produces a small reduction in
total system mass at the expense of a small reduction In injector orifice diameter and
more significant reductions in bed diameter.

The blowdown ratio has a small impact on the optimum total system mass, however,
it has a major impact on injector orifice diameter through its effect on final tank
pressure and hence on final nozzle inlet pressure. Practical limits on injector orifice
and catalyst bed diameters may restrict the choice of bed loading and blowdown
ratio.
Proceeding of the 11-th ASAT Conference, 17-19 May 2005 PR-01 420

CONCLUSIONS

A preliminary design analysis of a hydrazine monopropellant thruster is conducted. A

combination of two analysis models has been employed. The liquid phase length is
predicted off line using a detailed model, whereas the gas phase performance is
estimated on line using a simpler model. The results indicate that two critical tank
pressures bind the selection, below the first the nozzle mass increases sharply, and
above the second the tank mass increases sharply. The optimum tank pressure lies
between these two limits and vanes with both the bed loading and blowdown ratio.
For each tank pressure and blowdown ratio there is a critical bed loading, which
when exceeded a steep rise in bed losses take place with severe penalty in system
mass. On the other hand, the bed loading has a dominant effect on the catalyst bed
diameter.

The blowdown ratio has a small impact on optimum total system mass but its effect
on injector orifice diameter is significant. The injector orifice diameter, considered
here as a measure of technological complexity, may have a main impact on the
choice of the bed loading and blowdown ratio.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work was sponsored and administrated by the Academy of Scientific Research
and Technology. This support is highly acknowledged.

REFERENCES

1 Kesten A.S., "Analytical study of catalytic reactors for Hydrazine Decomposition

First Annual Progress Report", United Aircraft Research Laboratories Technical
Report UACRL F 910461-12 NAS 7-458, May 1968.
2 Sangiovanni, J.J. and Kesten A. S., "Analysis of gas pressure build up within a
porous catalyst particle which is wet by a liquid reactant", Chemical Engineering
Science 26, 533, 1971.
3 Schmitz B.W. and Smith W.W., "Development of Design and Scaling Criteria for
Monopropellant Hydrazine Reactors Employing Shell-405 Spontaneous Catalyst"
Rocket Research Technical Report RRC-66-R-76, NAS 7-372, Jan. 1967.
4 Smith E.J., and Kesten A. S., "Analytical study of catalytic reactors for Hydrazine
Decomposition-Computer Programs Manual", United Aircraft Research
Laboratories Technical Report UACRL G910461-30 NAS 7-458, Aug. 1968.
5 Michales R. S., "A Comprehensive Experimental and Analytical Study of
Hydrazine Decomposition Reactor", M.Sc. Thesis, University of Alabama, Dec.
1994.
6 Hashem.A.A., "Preliminary Design of Propulsion System", Academy of Scientific
Research and Technology Report, June 2003.
7 El-Barbay A.A.F., "Modeling of Catalytic Reactors for Monopropellant Hydrazine
Thrusters", M.Sc. Thesis, Aerospace Dept., Cairo University, Dec. 2001.
8 Lefebvre.A.H., "Atomization and Sprays", Hemisphere Publishing Corp, 1989.
9 Brown.D.B., "Spacecraft Propulsion", AIAA Education Series, pp 74, 1995.
Proceeding of the 11-th ASAT Conference, 17-19 May 2005 PR-01 421

Retainer Screen

Injector

Cata yst Bed Nozzle

Catalyst pellet

Fig. 1 Typical monopropellant catalytic bed thruster.

1 Pressurant Fill and Drain Valve

2 Tank
3 Tank heater
4 Propellant Fill and Drain Valve
5 Line Heater
6 Relief valve
7 Filter
8 Thruster Valve
9 Thruster Valve heater
10 Catalyst bed
11 Catalyst bed Heater

Fig. 2 Schematic layout of monopropellant system.

Proceeding of the 11-th ASAT Conference, 17-19 May 2005 PR-01 422

0.40
— reference
— — B=3
0.30 Ptk30 bar
G20 kg/s.m2

Ei 0.20

O
0.10

0.00
0 100 200 300 400 500

Nozzle expansion ratio

Fig. 3 Effect of nozzle expansion ratio on nozzle mass.

1.05 -
—reference
— — B=3
Relative system mass

1.00 -----Pt130 bar

- &=20 kg/s.m2
0.95 -

0.90

0.85

0.80
0 100 200 300 400 500
Nozzle expansion ratio

Fig. 4 Effect of nozzle expansion ratio on relative system mass.

2.0

1.8

1.6

0.8

0.6

0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Tank pressure [bar]

Fig. 5 Variations of tank mass, G=20 kg/(s.m2).

 ▪

Proceeding of the 11-th ASA T Conference, 17-19 May 2005 PR-01 423

1.0
—B=2
b° 0.8
— — B=3
1 --B--4.
0.6
a?

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Tank Pressure [bar]
Fig. 6 Variations of nozzle mass, G=20 kg/(s.m2).

6.0

5.5
P.
5.0
a
E. 4.5

a) 4.0
— 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Bed loading [kg/s.m2]

Fig. 7 Effect of bed loading on injector initial pressure drop, Pfk1=20 bar, B=2.
0.7
0.6 ill —B=3,Plic.20 [bar]
— — B=2,Pt120 [bar]
111.11 I ---B=3,Ptk10 [bar]
gd° 0.5 B=2,Ptk10 [bar]
• 0.4 in
0.3
0
• 0.2
0.1
0 iiiiiri -' ad
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Bed loading, G [kg/s.m2]

Fig. 8 Effect of bed loading on nozzle mass.

Proceeding of the 11-th ASAT Conference, 17-19 May 2005 PR-01 424

13.4
—13=3,Pt120 [bar)
— — B=2,P1k20 [bar]
13.2 B-3,P1.110 [bar]

Total system mass kg

— [bar]
13.0

12.8

12.6

12.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Bed loading [kg/s.m2]

Fig. 9 Total system mass variations with bed loading.

40
Critical bed loading kg/s.m2

35
30
25
20
15
10
4 8 12 16 20 24
Tank pressure [bar]

Fig. 10 Critical bed loading.

1.0
+Tank mass
0.8 Nozzle mass

0.4

0.2
-•
0.0
20 25 30 35 40
Blowdown ratic
Fig. 11 Blowdown ratio effect on tank & nozzle masses, P111=20 bar, G=20 kg/(s.m2).
Proceeding of the 11-th ASAT Conference, 17-19 May 2005 PR -01 425

17.0
-10 kg/s m2
— G-- Ptki— 0 Bar
- 0 kg/s.m2
-- G=2
16.5
50
B=3 B=2
B=4 Pikp60 Bar

Par. min Pud 40

mm ' ki
., 1' ki
1
111. V \ IktO
ii.
'
50
11,,, .. io
I 1, 011
• Arlibli
30 20 10
20
14.5
0.350 0.375 0.400 0.425 0.450 0.475 0.500 0.525 0.550

Injector orifice diameter [mm]

Fig. 12-a Monopropellant system design chart, G=10,20 kg/(s.m2).

17.0
— G=30 kg/s.tn2 I Pik, 50 Bar
— Cr-40 kg/s.m2 B=2
16.5 i
B=3
B=4 min Pik; H50
on ' ___
16.0 I i
En
Pit,50
40
50
in Pth
-r
30
50 40
15.0 40 30 /
20
30 20
14.5
0.350 0.375 0.400 0.425 0.450 0.475 0.500 0.525 0.550
Injector orifice diameter [min]

Fig. 12-b Monopropellant system design chart, G=30,40 kg/(s.m2).