What is the most effective rocket propulsion

technology per kilogram of fuel to achieve a

geosynchronous orbit from the surface of the earth?
During the course of this dissertation the many types of rocket propellant
will be evaluated. This will mainly consist of solid fuel boosters and the 3
types of liquid fuel; cryogenic, semi-cryogenic and hypergolic. The main
attributes of these fuels that will be examined will be: specific impulse and
thrust, while these two values appear to be similar they will have different
implications on the very nature of the propellant. To elaborate; the specific
impulse of propellant is the force (measured in newtons) produced per
unit of fuel in comparison to thrust which is just the force that an
accelerated object exerts in the opposite direction to the force produced
due to Newton's Third Law of Motion. All specific impulse calculations are
taken from sea level due to the affect of pressure on the efficiency of the
engine. Higher altitudes yield higher specific impulses. Other special
qualities of such propellants will also be evaluated if they aid in the
process of a spacecraft achieving a geosynchronous orbit.
A geosynchronous orbit is when an orbiting body has the same orbital
period (time taken for the object to make a complete orbit) as it takes for
the earth complete one period of rotation around its axis which is 23
hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. A variation of a geosynchronous orbit is
a geostationary orbit that involves the orbiting body having an orbital
inclination of 0 degrees, meaning the satellite will appear to remain at the
same point in the sky at all times. Modelling the earth as a completely
spherical particle the radius for a geosynchronous orbit is 42,164km with
an orbital inclination of 0 degrees. (David A. 2007)
When coming to a conclusion on the most powerful propellant used to
achieve a geosynchronous orbit it is important to take into consideration
limiting factors such as the inability of solid fuel boosters to be vectored.
Vectoring is the ability for the nozzle on the exit of the combustion
chamber where the hot gas is released to change shape to alter the
rocket's trajectory. This is important when accomplishing a gravity burn
which reduces the amount of fuel needed to achieve a geosynchronous
orbit. Oxidisers are also needed due to the absence of molecular oxygen
in the uppermost parts of the atmosphere such as the ionosphere which is
needed for combustion.
Cryogenic Fuel
Cryogenic rocket engines use fuel that is at extremely low temperature,
the use of an oxidiser such as liquid oxygen is often needed due to the

lack of oxygen for combustion in a vacuum. Liquid oxygen is often

misrepresented as the fuel itself however this is a misnomer. When the
fuel undergoes combustion in the chamber the gas escapes out of the
exhaust pipe and is propelled at high velocity. This propels the rocket
vertically due to Newtons 3rd Law of Motion because the gas leaving the
exhaust pushes the rocket away with an equal amount of force
accelerating the rocket forwards. Using this propellant also allows for
engines to be vectored, because of this it is easier to accomplish a gravity
burn to achieve orbit using less fuel (George P. Sutton et al 2004).
Cryogenic fuels are at a high risk of performing a hard start otherwise
known as catastrophic disassembly of the spacecraft. This is when the
fuel to oxidiser ratio in the engine is incorrect leading to a large build up of
one or the other. When the propellants react together there is a huge
increase in pressure inside the combustion chamber that effectively blows
the spacecraft apart in a violent explosion.
The first cryogenic to be examined is liquid oxygen (referred to as LOX)
and kerosene. This is viewed by some as the most practical way of
achieving orbit from take off at ground level (M.D Black 2010). This
mixture was used in the most powerful rocket engines ever built; the
Rocketdyne F-1, the same engine used in Saturn V rocket. These engines
using LOX and kerosene supplied a thrust of 6.77 MN with a specific
impulse of 339.3Ns-1 in an oxidiser to fuel ratio of 2.27:1. Considering this
engine would have a maximum burn time of 230 seconds this is an
unrelenting amount of thrust (George C. Marshall 1968). This is more
thrust in one engine than the 3 main Space Shuttle engines combined
making this an extremely powerful propellant, so powerful that the Saturn
V had to be insulated from the inordinate amplitude of sound it produced,
without which would cause the main stage of the rocket to shake apart.
For perspective the amplitude of sound produced was so immense it could
set fire to foliage a mile a way and is the loudest. Taking this into
consideration the extraordinary thrust produced by this fuel appears to be
excessive when the target is to achieve a geosynchronous orbit when this
fuel was used to reach the moon in the main stage, however these were
only used in the first lift-off stage so could still possibly be used if the
payload to be delivered was unusually massive (David A. 2007).
A more powerful alternative to using LOX and kerosene is to replace the
kerosene with liquid hydrogen. This combination is used in the now
obsolete space shuttle main engines to produce a specific impulse of
391Ns-1 (Ponomarenko, 2016). This mixture is considered to be the most
efficient and powerful of any cryogenic fuel. Having a higher specific
impulse than kerosene and liquid oxygen also supports this view. However

it has many drawbacks due to both oxidiser and propellant needing to be

kept at sub zero temperatures. This causes major design issues on the
spacecraft itself, firstly the fuselage of the rocket must be insulated from
any sources of heat including the extremely hot exhaust fumes of the
rocket itself and heat produced from the friction between the rocket and
the air. The technical issues do not end in the atmosphere with the
spacecraft having to be protected from solar radiation from the sun that
can warm the low density fuel. When it is heated both gases expand
within the confined space of the fuselage which results in an increase in
pressure and potentially an explosion. To prevent this the rockets must be
vented to release excess pressure and welds must be done with
meticulous precision to prevent the gases escaping (Derek Lowe 2008).
Hypergolic Fuel
Hypergolic fuels are fuels that ignite instantly when the two substances
(almost always the oxidiser and propellant) come into contact with each
other. This has the added benefit that it makes the ignition sequence at
take off extremely simple and easy compromising on the fact they usually
produce less thrust and have a lower specific impulse than their cryogenic
and semi-cryogenic counterparts resulting in an increase in the amount of
fuel needed compared and thus a more massive spacecraft. This ease of
the ignition is also safer reducing the risk of a hard start, in larger
spacecraft helium is pumped into the propellant tank through safety
valves and then into the combustion chamber where the inert noble gas
prevents the oxidiser and propellant mixing and instantly igniting. This
system has a much higher safety record than other propellants (George P.
Sutton et al 2004).
Another advantage however is that they can be stored as a liquid at room
temperature making the movement and safety of these otherwise
extremely toxic and corrosive nature. This is an advantage that cryogenic
fuels lack as they can only be used in launch vehicles where they are
stored briefly. Hypergolic fuels on the other hand are not limited to launch
vehicles and are in fact extremely useful in the upper stages of a
spacecraft where spacecraft must manoeuvre into the correct orientation
for a geosynchronous orbit by doing correct retrograde burns to modify its
speed and thus reducing its orbital radius (John Clark 1972).
A popular and most frequently used hypergolic fuel mixture is
unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (N2H4) mixed with dinitrogen tetroxide
(N2O4). This has an excellent fuel to weight ratio and is also shock
resistant increasing its safety rating. It has a specific impulse of 230Ns-1,
although this is significantly less than the kerosene and liquid oxygen the

excellent fuel to weight ratio results in a less massive spacecraft so less

thrust is needed to achieve a geosynchronous orbit velocity (W. G
Andrews 1991).
Comparatively the hypergolic fuel chlorine triflouride with hydrazine has a
specific impulse of 270Ns-1(Paul M. Ordin et al 1949). This is significantly
higher than the specific impulse of hydrazine with other oxidisers,
however this substance developed by Nazi scientists is only stable in
quartz containers at 180 degrees Celsius due to the fact is more oxidising
than oxygen making this an extremely difficult and dangerous substance
to store. It initiates combustion with materials otherwise classified as nonflammable such as TeflonTM or asbestos. Quartz has very strong
intermolecular forces and bonds making it unlikely for chlorine triflouride
to form potentially explosive oxides with it. All equipment that comes into
contact with the oxidiser must be emphatically cleaned making this
oxidiser extremely unlikely to be used. A case study in 1950 exemplifies
this fact when one ton of the substance was spilled and it burnt through
0.3m of concrete and 1m of sand and gravel beneath (Derek Lowe 2008)
Solid Fuel
Solid fuels are exclusively used during the 1st stage of space flight at liftoff where the vessel needs the maximum amount of thrust possible to
become airborne with all the rockets mass. They achieve this by being
used immediately and then when the fuel supply has been used in its
entirety the tanks that stored the fuel are jettisoned increasing the
momentum and efficiency of the spacecraft (M.D Black 2010). A huge
advantage to using a solid rocket booster (SRB) is that they are easy to
store and the mechanism by which they achieve thrust is relatively simple
in comparison to other propellants. This decreases the risk of catastrophic
disassembly of the vessel with a failure rate of only 1% (M.D Black 2010).
By being cheaply manufactured they are extremely useful for budget
spacecraft especially in the commercial space flight industry with Space X
and Virgin Galactic adopting solid fuel boosters in their launch sequence.
However, there are some negative qualities involving solid rocket fuel
boosters, firstly it is notoriously hard to terminate the exothermic reaction
occurring in the combustion chamber of a solid rocket fuel booster. This
can be overcome at the expense of destroying the tank that would
normally be reused after splashing down in the ocean reducing
manufacture cost by negating the expense of remaking the system
(George P. Sutton et al 2004). Most solid fuel boosters use a self destruct
mechanism to stop the reaction by having an explosive charge to
separate the nozzle from the combustion chamber, this works by reducing

the overall pressure in the combustion chamber and slowing down the
rate of reaction, however the reaction still continues.
In the past black powder has been used for very primitive solid fuel
booster designed however due to the explosive nature of gunpowder its
range is limited to very low thrust motors; never exceeding 40N of thrust
(M.D Black 2010). The current solid fuel booster being used by NASA
involves a mixture of ammonium perchlorate and aluminium powder. This
has an average specific impulse at sea level of 285.6Ns-1(A. Ponomarenko
2016). This is less than the specific impulse of any bipropellant liquid fuel
engines, in addition to this they also cannot be used outside the
atmosphere, including their uncontrollable burn rate they cannot be used
for manoeuvring in orbit for fine adjustments meaning they're limited only
to the lift-off stage of flight and nothing else (George P. Sutton et al 2004).
Using this mix of solid fuel and catalyst can also be self detrimental to the
efficiency of the solid rocket fuel motor. The products of this reaction
between aluminium and ammonium perchlorate results in a residue that
can block the nozzle of the solid fuel booster decreasing efficiency of the
motor.
Hybrid Fuel
Hybrid fuels overcome the issues of solid fuels such as an ammonium
perchlorate booster by using a liquid oxidiser with the solid fuel. This
allows the engine to be throttled up or down which solid fuel boosters
alone cannot perform, in addition to this the motor can also be restarted
because the supply of oxidiser can sealed stopping the reaction in an
emergency such as a structural failure or if the spacecraft is moving too
fast in the atmosphere and wasting fuel because it has reached the
terminal speed for its design.
An example of a hybrid fuel is hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB)
and nitrous oxide. The HTPB binds the nitrous oxide (which is the oxidiser)
into an elastic solid which can also be mixed with traditional ammonium
perchlorate fuel and aluminium powder in the ratio 3:17:5 allowing the
hybrid fuel to produce a specific impulse of 210Ns-1. This combination is
used by the Japanese Space Agency (JAXA) in the M-5 rockets' 2nd 3rd and
4th stage however this is still a lower specific impulse than that of the
cryogenic fuel LOX and therefore has a lower efficiency (M.D Black 2010).
This hybrid fuel however also negates the limitations of other hybrid fuels
due to the fact that the vessel containing the fuel does not have to be as
strong as others if they were housing other hybrid fuel such as ammonium
perchlorate and thiokol. This problem is overcome because the
combustion chamber when using HTPB does not have to be as large as

others because the amount of the fuel needed is less because it has a
relatively high specific impulse. In other hybrid fuel systems the
combustion chamber must be able to endure the full force of combustion
and very high temperatures created by the alternative hybrid fuel (M.D
Black 2010).
The reason that the specific impulse is generally lower than that of the
hybrid fuels' counter parts is due to the mechanism in which the fuel is
used. In traditional liquid motors the oxidiser and fuel are mixed at the
uppermost point of the combustion chamber whereby controlled streams
of the mixture ignite. On the other hand in a hybrid motor the combustion
occurs along the evaporation gradient of the fuel and therefore large
swathes of fuel is un-combusted and therefore decreases the specific
impulse. Because of this hybrid fuels are not usually used for stages
requiring large amounts of thrust such as lift-off or boost stages. One
method of counteracting this problem involves increasing the surface area
for the evaporation to occur on because this will increase the rate of
combustion so there is a lower probability for fuel to be left unburned. This
can be achieved by allowing the fuel to enter the combustion chamber
through multiple entry points but by doing this will increase the size of the
combustion chamber, increasing the total mass of the spacecraft,
something that is needed to be kept to a minimum. There is an upper
bound to how much you can increase the area of evaporation though; too
higher a surface area will result in local flameouts along the
evaporation gradient decreasing the efficiency of the motor yet again by
leaving unburned fuel.
Due to many factors such as: limited funding for development, the fact
that solid fuel has much better attributes, especially when tasked with a
similar task like lift-off due to higher efficiency and specific impulse.
Including the fact that solid fuel is easier to store and handle, it is
definitive that hybrid fuels are not a strong contender to be a good
propellant to achieve a geosynchronous orbit.
Nuclear Propulsion
There are many different types of nuclear propulsion that have been
proposed and some have even been developed such as Project Orion
which takes advantage of a series of nuclear explosions at a set frequency
behind the spacecraft to propel it. If the problems of nuclear propulsion
are overcome they will be significantly more powerful than traditional
chemical rocket fuel and will enable for manned deep space missions (C. J
Everret et al 1955). The problems engineers face depends on the type of
nuclear propulsion. A fusion rocket will produce the highest specific

impulse of any rocket but achieving nuclear fusion on a fast moving

platform is currently far beyond any current technology. Nuclear fusion is
only just being developed as a means of generating electricity for the
public. A nuclear propelled rocket that undergoes catastrophic
disassembly would spread radioactive material across a large area
contaminating the surroundings.
Fusion rockets are spacecraft that are propelled through the energy
released by the combining of light nuclei to produce a specific impulse in
abundant excess of 6000Ns-1 and specific impulses in a vacuum
theoretically possible in the magnitude of 100,000Ns-1 (R.B Adams et al
2003). This huge specific impulse would allow a geosynchronous orbit to
be achieved using very little fuel and would be extremely efficient; fusion
rocketry would also produce less radiation than fission propelled rockets
resulting in less mass being constrained by shielding the rocket from the
ionising effects of the radiation. The mass of the fusion reactor must be
considered, current fusion reactors would weigh more than the fuel
needed to accelerate the spacecraft to escape velocity.
Fusion rockets can be split into two categories: direct propulsion or ion
propulsion. Direct propulsion is not currently being developed due to the
Partial Test Ban Treaty signed in the 1963 that prohibits the detonation of
nuclear bombs in the earths atmosphere. Some studies suggest
radioactive fallout from each launch could harm one in ten people
however other studies state a rather more conservative number (R.B
Adams et al 2003). Even so detonation of nuclear bombs in the upper
atmosphere such as in the ionosphere where there is a high concentration
of charged particles from the sun can be seen as undoubtedly worse. Due
to the lack of oxygen to support combustion and a lack of a medium for
heat to transfer into, all energy from the blast is converted to more charge
particles, otherwise known as an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that would
disable electronic devices such as satellites, a similar affect to that of a
solar flare.
Ion propulsion is now more viable; one concept is the magneto-inertial
fusion driven rocket or MSNW. Its mechanism of operation would involve
large metal rings made from an alkaline metal such as lithium due to its
likelihood to donate its one s shell electron to become more stable being
exposed to a powerful magnetic field. A consequence of this would be the
collapse of these metal rings around a low density plasma which would
increase the pressure such that it enters a fusion state. As a result this
volatile scorching metal would be propelled out of the vessel to produce
specific impulses in the range of 1600Ns-1 to 5770Ns-1 depending on
whether in the spacecraft is in a gravity assist or not. The process would

be repeated every set interval of time, approximately 1 minute to

continue accelerating the rocket (R.B Adams et al 2003). The MSNW is
also not sustainable; requiring electrical energy to start the fusion process
which means electrical energy must be attained from other sources such
as solar panels.
Conclusion
Due to the unlikelihood of nuclear propulsion technology being developed
extensively in the not so distant future I do not think they are the best
propulsion method to achieve a geosynchronous orbit however if there
was a high probability of this being achieved soon they would be classified
without a doubt as the most effective way to achieve said orbit. Solid fuel
boosters while being extremely cheap relative to cryogenic and hypergolic
fuels present themselves with a number of disadvantages when compared
to their counterparts. Firstly their inability to effectively stop the
exothermic reaction posses the problem that if the spacecraft in the
atmosphere is already going its terminal speed trying to accelerate it
more would waste a lot of fuel energy in the form of thermal energy. This
lack of control does not end in the atmosphere; the fine control needed to
achieve a geosynchronous orbit would not be possible with a solid fuel
booster because, waiting for the spacecraft to reach its apoapsis before
starting its retro burn would not be a possibility. For this reason solid fuel
boosters are not the most effective means to achieve a geosynchronous
orbit.
The inefficiency of hybrid fuels and the engineering challenges faced to
overcome them can be said to be too complicated for the fuel's benefits.
While hypergolic fuels do have their advantages over cryogenic fuels
taking into consideration data alone cryogenic fuels almost always have a
higher specific impulse. This is especially true if super high energy
bipropellants are being used for propulsion. A huge advantage of
hypergolic fuels though is there storage conditions. Large amounts of
energy is used to ensure that the cryogenic fuels remain liquid, this also
increases the complexity of the rocket motor and spacecraft design to
avoid catastrophic failure of the vessel. This complexity makes cryogenic
rocket motors a lot more prone to failure and human life is something that
cannot be compared with specific impulse. This factor compared with the
relatively primitive design of hypergolic engines would suggest hypergolic
fuels are the best; however the advantages of cryogenic fuels far
outweigh the advantages of hypergolic fuels.
Using cryogenic fuels have been determined as the best rocket propulsion
method to achieve a geosynchronous orbit but there are many cryogenic

fuels. Liquid oxygen and kerosene was used in the most powerful rocket
engines ever made by man on the Apollo missions but technology has
advanced since then and a combination of liquid hydrogen and liquid
oxygen always supports a higher specific impulse and therefore using the
cryogenic fuel liquid oxygen with liquid hydrogen is the best method to
achieve a geosynchronous orbit. Liquid hydrogen and fluorine and other
such more reactive reagents produce a higher specific impulse but, due to
their high toxicity and huge issues storing them because of their
instability and tendency to explode this means they are not suitable as
fuels to use when attempting a geosynchronous orbit.
It must be taken into consideration however that all modern spacecraft
use a plethora of these fuels during different stages of their journey to
achieve maximum possible thrust and to use fuels flourish in the
environment that they are performing in. During lift-off for example large
amounts of thrust are needed to accelerate a very heavy object to escape
velocity so solid rocket boosters are used in conjunction with the first
stage cryogenic engines. Due to all mass adding to the force needed to
attain escape velocity once the solid rocket boosters have expired they
are jettisoned. When in orbit though fine adjustments are needed to
ensure they are at the correct attitude and eccentricity. To make these
corrections a less powerful fuel such as a cryogenic monopropellant or
hypergolic mixture are used. All rocket have their purpose but choosing
the correct fuel for the mission is paramount.
References
MARSHALL C. BURROWS (June 1968). Mixing and reaction studies of
hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide using photographic and spectral
techniques p. 6-18.
GEORGE C. MARSHALL (April 1968) Saturn V Flight Manuel p. 21-31
R.B. ADAMS, R.A. ALEXANDER, J.M. CHAPMAN, S.S. FINCHER, R.C.
HOPKINS, A.D. PHILIPS, T.T. POLSGROVE, R.J. LITCHFORD, AND B.W.
PATTON (November 2003) Conceptual Design of In-Space Vehicles for
Human Exploration of the Outer Planets p. 6-19
C. J. EVERETT AND S. M. ULAM (August 1955) A method of propulsion of
projectiles by means of external nuclear explosions part I p. 14
GEORGE P. SUTTON (2003). History of liquid propellant rocket engines in
the united states".Journal of Propulsion and Power. p. 9781007.
ANDREW PONOMARENKO (2016). RPA Standard Edition. Rocket Propulsion
Analysis.

M. D. BLACK (2012).The Evolution of ROCKET TECHNOLOGY, p. 90-101

PAUL M. ORDIN, JOHN M. DIEHL AND RILEY O. MILLER (1948). NACA:
Preliminary Investigation of Hydrazine as a Rocket Fuel (NACA Research
Memorandum)
D. LOWE (2008). Sand Won't Save You This Time. [Blog] Available at:
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2008/02/26/sand_wont_save
_you_this_time [Accessed 8 Feb. 2016].
DAVID A. VALLADO (2007). Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and
Applications. p. 31.
JOHN CLARK (1972). Ignition! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket
Propellants. p. 6
C. JONES, D. MASSE, C. WILHITE AND M. WALKER (2010). PHARO:
Propellant harvesting of atmospheric resources in orbit
GEOFFERY A. LANDIS AND DIANNE L. LINNE (October 2001). Mars rocket
fuel using in situ propellants

Propellant combinations
Low-energy monopropellants:
-Hydrazine
- Ethylene oxide
-Hydrogen peroxide
High-energy monopropellants:
- Nitromethane
Low-energy bipropellants:
-Perchloryl fluoride
-Analine-Acid
-JP-4-Acid
-Hydrogenperoxide-JP-4
Medium-energy bipropellants:
-Hydrazine-Acid
- Ammonia-Nitrogen tetroxide
High-energy bipropellants:
- Liquid oxygen-JP-4
- Liquid oxygen-Alcohol
- Hydrazine-Chlorine trifluoride
Very high-energy bipropellants:

Isp
Range(Ns-1)
160 to 190

190 to 230
200 to 230

230 to 260

250 to 270

270 to 330

- Liquid oxygen and fluorine-JP-4

-Liquid oxygen and ozone-JP-4
-Liquid oxygen-Hydrazine
Super high-energy bipropellants:
- Fluorine-Hydrogen
- Fluorine-Ammonia
- Ozone-Hydrogen
- Fluorine-Diborane

300 to 385