Computer Science – Performance
Scientific paper
Jan 2002
adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2002iaf..confe.784s&link_type=abstract
IAF abstracts, 34th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, The Second World Space Congress, held 10-19 October, 2002 in Houston, TX, USA.,
Computer Science
Performance
Scientific paper
The growing costs of space missions, the need for increased mission performance, and concerns associated with environmental issues deeply influence propulsion system design and propellant selection criteria. A propellant's performance was defined in the past exclusively in terms of specific impulse and density, but now high-performance, non-toxic, non-sophisticated mono- propellant systems are key drivers, and are considered for development to replace the traditional hydrazine (N2H4) mono-propellant thrusters. The mono-propellants under consideration are propellant formulations, which should be environmentally friendly, should have a high density, equal or better performance and better thermal characteristics than hydrazine. These considerations raised interest specially in the candidates of Hydroxylammonium Nitrate (HAN)-based propellants, Ammoniumdinitramide (ADN)-based propellants, Tri-ethanol (TEAN)-based propellants, Hydrazinium Nitroformate (HNF)-based propellants, Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2)-based propellants. A near-term objective in consideration of satellite related process optimisation is to significantly reduce on-ground operations costs and at the same time improve mission performance. A far-term objective is to obtain a system presenting a very high performance, illustrated by a high specific impulse. Moving to a "non-toxic" propulsion system seems to be a solution to these two goals. The sought after benefits for non-toxic spacecraft mono-propellant propulsion are under investigation taking into account the four main parameters which are mandatory for customer satisfaction while meeting the price constraints: - Reliability, availability, maintainability and safety, - Manufacturing, assembly, integration and test, - Launch preparation and support, - Ground support equipment. These benefits of non-toxic mono-propellants can be proven by various examples, like an expected reduction of development costs due the non-toxicity of propellants which might allow "easier" design, reducing some inhibits for ground safety, leading to a shorter development time, and consequently to reduced program costs. Operational costs could be reduced due to the use of non-toxic propellant. Their non-toxicity, in comparison to the traditional propellants, will avoid special safety procedures and also parallelisation of processes during all phases of AIT and launch preparations. The costs directly associated with propellant handling, transport and storage should be lower, also follow-on costs risk is minimised because of the elimination or significant reduction of toxic and carcinogenic characteristics of the propellants. The physical characteristic and properties of some of the propellants formulations mentioned, like a higher density than hydrazine, support the beneficial aspects: a global S/C weight reduction could be achieved due to smaller tanks.
Gies O.
Schiebener P. J.
Schmitz H.-D.
Stuhlberger J.
No associations
LandOfFree
Assessment of Cost Impacts of Using Non-Toxic Propulsion in Satellites does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with Assessment of Cost Impacts of Using Non-Toxic Propulsion in Satellites, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Assessment of Cost Impacts of Using Non-Toxic Propulsion in Satellites will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-1332754