AIAA 93-2610

TnE Raplo AND Low Cosr DEvEI-oPMENT OFA

HYeRro Rocxer MoroR
K.W. Schulze and S.A. Meyer
Gencorp-Aerojet, lnc.
luka, Mississippi

AIAA/SAEIASMHASEE
29th Joint Propulsion
Conference and Exhibit
June 28-30, 1993 I Monterey, CA
For permlssbn to copy or repubush, contact the Amerlcan lnstltrrt d LrEn8utlcs and Astronautlcs
370 LEntant Prcmenade, S.W., Washlnglon, D.C. 20024
 The Rapid and Low Cost Development of a
Hybrid Rocket Motor
K.W. Schulze* and S.A Meyer**
GencorpAerojet
Iuka, Mississippi

Ahstract
The purpose of this project was to verify the low
cost, safe development of a hybrid rocket motor from
" off-the-shelf" hardware. The use of this type of
hardware reduces the development cost and increases
flexibility of such a system. Demonsrarion of such
technology was accomplished in a period of six months
for incorporation into a flight concept hybrid rocket
motor. Multiple test firings were conducted with
relative ease and without risk of hazardous faih:res due
to the inherent safety and reliability of hybrid rocket
systems. The tests yielded design experience urilizing
recycled thermoplastic material as fuel. This
technology has potenlial as a low cost propulsion
system with applications ranging from gas generators
for attitude control rhrusters, rocket take-off assist to an
exo-atrnospheric skip glide vehicle.
In tro d u cti on
This project was independently developed and
successfully demonstrated the viabiliry of thermoplastic
fuels use in a hybrid rocket motor. No corporate or
government funds were used to develop or test this
hybrid rocket motor design. Therefore, cost was a key
facnr in every aspect of this demonstration.
The static test hybrid motor consists of a fuel
section, contained within a stainless steel combustion
chamber, with a high pressrue source of gaseous oxygen
to support combusrion. All of the required hardware for
tesring was used as off the self, instead of built to a
design The use of this type of hardware during the
prototype phase of a project reduces the development
cost and increases flexibility of such a system.
Demonstration of such technology was accomplished in
a period of less than six months for the static motor test
series. The motor components include a filament
wound graphite/epoxy pressure bottle, a monolithic
extruded gaphite nozzle throat, glass reinforced phenolic
insulator sleeve, stainless steel tubing and associated
hardware, solenoid manifold valves, pneuma[ic actuator
valves, two-st,age regulators, and required
insrnrmentation for regression rate model validadon.
Background
The research and development of hybrid rocket
motors is not new. In fact, a majority of work in this
specialty was accomplished in the 1960's. Renewed
interest in hybrid rocket motor development has gained
considerable momentum. Many proJects are focused on
hybrid rocket motor development from lab scale test
motors to AMROC's successful testing of a large
250,000 lbf-thrust motor, ar Philtips Lab in California.
Inspiration for this project began with a
presentation given by Allan Holzman of United
Technologies Chemical Systems Division at the 27th
Joint Propulsion Conference in 1989, otr the safery and
simplicity of hybrid rocket motors. During his
presentation he gave a demonstration by firing several
different solid fuel types using a low pressure oxygen
system with a butane spark ignition. This' was
convincing evidence that hybrid rocket systems are truly
safe and simple. Suttonl sums up the main advantages
and disadvanLages for hybrid rocket systems as follows.
. top-stary'restart capabiliries
S
. Environmentally safe exhaust characteristics for
many propellant combinations
. Higher potential reliability than either solid or bi-
propellant systems
. Relative to liquid engines, the hybrid requires half
of the pumps and plumbing since only one liquid
or gas component must be handled
. Relative to a solid rocket, the fuel grain is stronger
and inert and therefore insensitive to over pressure
due to cracks, unbonds and voids which occur
occasionally in solid propellant grains
. Relatively low system cost
. Higher specific l1npulse than solid motors and
higher-density impulse than liquid bi-propellant
engines
. The ability to change motor thrust smoothly over a
wide range on demand.

Cop),ri.-qht @ 1993 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
+ Senior Project Engi.neer, AIAA member
:k:i Pro1ect Engineer

Page I

The following are the main disadvantages of hybrid
rocket motors;
. test results to a specific design parameter. The inherent
Mixture ratio and hence specific impulse will vary
somewhat during steady-state operation and
throttling
. Nominal steady-state combustion efficiencies in the
range 93 to 97 Vo are slightly lower than liquid or
solid systems
. Lower system density impulse and thus a larger
volume than solid propellant motors
. Some fuel sliver must usually be retained in the
combustion chamber at the end-of-burn, which
slightly reduces motor mass fraction.
The disadvantages of hybrid rocket systems pose a
challenge to the propulsion designer. However, hybrid
rocket systems offer gfeater overall benefits for specific
applications than either solid or liquid propulsion
systems because of their inherent safety, simpliciry and
lower cost.
Approach
The long term and ultimate goal of this project is
to develop a 300 to 400 lbf-thrust flight concept hybrid
rocket molor to demonstrate the inherent system safety,
flexibility, reliability, and lower cost for a flight
application. To achieve that goal, an understanding of
the key design parameters and acquisition of the
necessry Mta to optimtze a flight system was required.
A series of static tests was conducted to gain the
experience and datz necessary to develop a low cost
flight concept hybrid rocket motor. Gaseous oxygen
was selected to avoid some of the problems of liquid
oxygen and the sensitivity to injector design. I[ is also
inexpensive at $0.72 per pound or $15 per K-bottle. It
was therefore possible to complete a number of tests to
acquire the necessary data to validate the burn rate model
for thermoplastic fuels.
High Density Polyethylene was investigated as
one of the viable thermoplastic fuels. HDPE is inert
and safe to handle. It is commercially available in
many forms and is easy to machine or cast. It is a good
thermal insulator (Kc = 0.45 Btu/lb-"F) and a- m6lt
temperature of 400 to 800 oF. The theoretical
performance is very good with an Isp vac = 284 (ldf-
sec[bm). HTPB has an Isp vac = 359 and as a solid
rocket fuel the Isp vac = 279. The other benefits of
HDPE is that the combustion products are
environmentally safe (HZO and CO2). Recycled HDPE
is an extremely low cost fuel at $0.05 per pound as
compared with HTPB at $5.00 to $8.00 per pound.
Hardware for testing was incorporated as- built,
instead of built to a design, to keep costs as low as
possible and still acquire the necess ry design data.
Preliminary data was obtained by using a pipe chamber
test motor (Figure 1) and gradually inco{porated flight
Page 2
design hardware and materials (Figure 2). This
minimizes the effects of multiple design changes and
variable interaction and allowed for direct correlation of
system safety and robustness allowed for rapid
progression through the test series.
A non-pressure dependent burn rate equation was
used to develop a regression rate model for various types
of thermoplastic fuel sections. Existing technical
literature does not provide data for predicting
performance of this specific oxidi zer-to-fuel
combinations; ttris data was necessary to further develop
the flight design concept. A preliminary model for
polyethylene plastic (Table 1) was used to calculate the
preliminary sizing of the static test chamber panmeters
such as; fuel section bore diameter, nozzle throat
diameter, and preliminary thmst and burn time.
Burn Rate Model
Several fuel regression rate equations have been
proposed for hybrid rocket motors in the past. Most are
attempts at following the behavior observed in solid
rocket motors, given by the expresslon;
ro = aPc)n (1)
In hybrid rocket motors, it has been obsenred that
the semi-empirical regression rate equation is dependent
on the mass flow per areil or mass flux rate.
16 - b(Gox)m (2)
However, the following equation accounts for the
mass flux rate of fuel as;
ro=p t(riro*+pf ro SAy*ApJo (3)
of the
which provides a more accurate description
regrcssion behavior within a hybrid rocket motor.
Test Objectives
The primary objectives for the first three
preliminary tests were to perfonn a system check-out of
all pressure lines, valves and fittings and to test the
ignitability of the thermoplastic (Polyethylene) at
ambient conditions and to maintain a continuous burn
with a steady flow of oxygen. To keep the ignition
system simple, &tr Estes "C6" or "A3 " model rocket
motor was used to initiate combustion of the
thermoplastic. Two thermoplastic fuel grains ( HDPE
& R-HDPE ) and three oxygen mass flow rates (Gox
valve settings of 1.5, 2.5 &.6 turns) were evaluated (see
Table 2) n obtain preliminary burn rate information.
Test # 1 through #3 used the "pipe" chamber as
illustrated in Figure 1, to perform a system check-out of
all pressure lines, valves and fittings and test the
ignitability of the thermoplastic (Polyethylene) at
ambient conditions and maintain a continuous burn
with a steady flow of oxygen. In addition, a metering
valve was incolporated to control the oxygen flow rate
through the thermoplastic fuel sections. For Test #2
and #3, anozzle throat of 3116 inches dia. was drilled in
the aft closure to evaluate the burn rate at chamber
pressure. A center perforated fuel grain with a diameter
of 314 inch was used for all three grains. Test #3
evaluated the use of recycled high density polyethylene
(R-HDPE) thermoplastic. This material is also
commercially available and is black which allows for
more adequate shielding of the steel chamber from
radiant heat effects.
Information gained in the preliminary test series
was used to size the static test chamber parameters.
Test #4A through Test #58 utilized the "static test"
hardware illusrated in Figure 2. A monolithic graphite
GK-71) nozzle throat was incorporated with a glass
filled phenolic insulator sleeve to protect the stainless
steel hardware from the high temperature gases
(approximately 5700 oF).
T est Configuration
The "pipe" chamber test hardware was a 2-inch
schedule 40 galvanized steel pipe threaded to an AII{SI
150 flange and bolted to a closed flange with two
threaded ports. One port was used as the oxygen
injector and ilte second port held the igniter and pressure
gage assembly (Figure l). A thermoplastic fuel grain
was bonded and sealed into the 6 inch section of pipe.
Oxygen flow was initiated by activating a solenoid
manifold valve which actuated a Nupro pneumatic valve
in the oxygen line. The line pressure was set at the
two-stage regulator at approximately 300 psig.
Ignition was triggered remotely via an electric switch
and an Estes "C6" motor.
The static test motor consisted of a stainless steel
chamber was made by Varian for Ultra high vacuum
apptications with a 0.060 inch wall thickness (Figure
2). All of the stainless steel components were
purchased as surplus equipment. A 2.36 inch by 1 1.5
inch high density polyethylene fuel grain (TIVAR 100
produced by Poly HI Solidur) was sealed within the
stainless steel chamber. This fuel grain also protected
the chamber from the hot gas environment. The head
end closure contained four po{S. The main port was
used as the oxygen injector. The second port held the
igniter cartridge. The igniter cartridge contained a Estes
"A3" size model rocket motor. The two smaller ports
were used as the nitrogen purye and pressure transducer
pon (0-200 psia) and for a second pressure transducer (0-
1500 psia). Because of the narrow case tube section, a
glass reinforced phenolic insulator sleeve was necessary
to protect the metal case. All exposed metal surfaces
were protected using EPDM silicon rubber. The nozzle
assembly used a stainless steel flange closure with a
monolithic isomolded (rather than extruded) EK-71
graphite throat insert. This gfaphite insert was bonded
to the stainless steel using an RTV silicone. This thin
Page 3
layer of RTV protected the stainless steel closure from
the white hot graphite nozzle.
Material & Cost
The following table is a listing of some of the
marn components and costs. The total cost for the
hybrid rocket motor was $510. This low cost was the
result of using existing or surplus hardware whenever
possible. Some machine work was required to modify
the hardware for use as a hybrid rocket motor. Many
items were also samples from vendors which made this
experiment a cooperative effort.
Ultra High Vacuum Chamber (3Mss) $17.00
Varian Conflat Closure with Four ports $18.00
Glass filled Phenolic Insulator NC
Monolithic Graphite Nozzle NC
@K-7r & HLM85)
Stainless Steel Lines, Fittings & Regulators $220.00
lvlachine Work $2t0.00
Gox, K - bottle (2200 psi) $15.00
GN2, Q - bottle (2200 psi) $9.00
2.36" x !2" F{DPE Thermoplastic Fuel NC
2.36" x 12" R-HDPE Thermoplastic Fuel NC
2.36- x 12" PMMA Thermoplastic Fuel $21.00
Test Arrangement
Gaseous oxygen (Gox) and nitrogen (GN2) stored
in high pressure cylinders (K - bottles at 2200 psig)
were used and controlled by pneumatically actuated
valves controlled by a manifold of solenoid valves
(Figure 3). The nitrogen gas was used to purge and
cool the chamber after each static test. The flow of
gaseous oxygen was controlled by a metering valve,
which was p e-set by the number of turns. This
metering valve was calibrated at a setting of 1.5 turns
by using a known volume and pressure of gas and
recording the pressure drop with time. The oxygen line
pressure upstream of the metering valve and the
chamber pressure were measured and recorded. To keep
the ignition System simple, &r Estes rocket motor
("C6" or "A3" model) was used to initiate combustion
of the thermoplastic. A thrust adapter was used to
transfer thrust loads to an Eaton-Lebow (model 3169)
load cell. A horizontal test stand was constructed with a
linear bearing table and load cell mounted to a 314 inch
plate strucnue (Figure 3).
Instrumentation
Data was recorded using the BAKI(ER model2570-
P system data acquisition system (DAS) provided by
Pacific Instruments, Inc. The model 2570-P is a
portable waveform analyzer for recording and analyzing
transient events. The system capabilities include; 12
channels with & K samples per channel memory and
up to 50 Ksps digital recording rate, remote trigger
option and menu driven set-up and dataanalysis features
including FFT & Spectral Analysis options.
Transducer signal conditioning was provided by Pacific
Instruments, Inc. using two Pacific Instruments model
321013215 Transducer Conditioning Amplifiers for
four channels of analog input to the Bakker 2570-P
DAS. The digital data was stored on a 1.44 lv{byte IBM
formatted disk for frrrther analysis.
Sensors used to acquire data were; one 2 Klbs load
cell (Eaton-Lebow, model 3169), a 0-200psia Pressure
transducer (Eaton-PSD) and a 0- l500psia (Paine)
pressure transducer. A 0400psig gage was used for
upstream pressure measurements, which was recorded by
video camera. One high temperature internal
thermocouple was planned but not used in this series of
tests.
Two video cameras were used to record the events
and to establish the reference time (preliminary test
series). The test controls, video monitor, Bakker DAS
were located 7 5 feet from the test stand behind a of the thrust trace measured on Test #5B. It
protective wall.
Results
The Seven tests that were conducted are outlined in
Table 2 and were divided into a preliminary series and a
static test series.
The polyethylene thermoplastic (Test #1) was
ignited easily and burned for approximately 20 seconds,
producing a smoke free plume eight feet in length
before shut-down. The test was a success and yielded
the first opportunity to estimate fuel regression rate of
approximately 0.0281 in/sec for a Gox valve setting of
6 turns.
Test #2 used the same chamber as in Test #1, but
had a3ll6 inch nozzle throat in the threaded aft closure.
The Gox metering valve was Set to 2.5 turns which
yielded a 100 psig AP between the oxygen injector
pressure and the chamber pressure. Ignition was
initiated with a Estes "C6" model rocket motor. The
polyethylene successfully maintained a burn with
indications of peak chamber pressure of 220psig.
Pressure was maintained for 0.6 seconds until the
galvanized steel nozzle throat eroded to match the fuel
grain bore diameter (1 inch dia.). Motor burn was
maintained for ll.4 seconds yielding an average
regression rate of approximately 0.0155 in/sec. Flame
temperature was approximately 4500'F based on the
erosion of the galvanizeA steel closure.
Test #3 used recycled polyethylene thermoplastic
and a Gox valve sening of 1.5 turns. A pressure of 190
psi was maintained for 1.6 seconds before the galvantzed
steel nozzle throat eroded to match the fuel gfain bore
diameter. The burn time for this test was 18 seconds
which yielded an average fuel regression rate of 0.0057
in/sec.
Test #4A &.4B used the same HDPE fuel grain
(TIVAR 100). The burn time was l4.l seconds for a
Gox valve setting of 2, resulted in a chamber pressure
of 200 psi. The regression rate for test #4A was .005
Page 4
in/sec. Test #48 had a 15 second burn time for a gox
valve setting of 4. The regression rate was calculated at
.0075 in/sec. For the gox valve settings on tests #44
and #48, Do nozzle throat erosion was observed.
Test #5A & 58 used a new HDPE fuel grain
GIVAR 100). The burn time was 15 seconds for a Gox
valve setting of 6, resulted in a chamber pressure of 207
psi. The regression rate for test #5A was .00155 in/sec.
Test #58 had a burn time of 18 seconds for a Gox valve
setting of 6. The regression rate was calculated at
.00155 in/sec. For the Gox valve settings on tests #5A
and #58, the nozzle throat erosion rate was estimated at
.0385 in/sec. At these Gox valve settings, the graphite
material was reacting with the high temperature oxygen
gas even though the combustion mixture was less than
stoichemetric (3.42 OIF ratio). Figure 4 is an example
was
interesting to note that the loadbike which occurred
after ignition, was due to a delay charge in the Estes
model rocket motor. At the end of Test #5A & 58, the
hybrid motor was shut down for 2 seconds and restarted
with a smooth transition to steady state operation.
During the posttest examination of the test
hardware, it was noted that there was minor burn
through to the metal case without heat damage to the_
case. On the preliminary tests, there was evidence of
back-side burning but was quickly extinguished. This
would have been a catastrophic failure in a solid rocket
motor, however the hybrid rocket motors are very
insensitive to unbonds or delaminations from the case
wall. and are therefore much Safer. The phenolic
insulator sleeve performed very well during all four
tests, which totaled 54 seconds.
Data Analysis
Data from the experiments were analyzed to
evaluate the average fuel regression rates, combustion
efficiencies, oxidizer-to-fuel ratios , nozzle erosion rates,
and motor performance (Table 3). The mass flow rate
of fuel is the change in mass of the fuel grain measured
before and after the test divided by the test burn time;
thf = Am + At (4)
The mass flow rate of oxygen was determined from
the equation,
fro* = Cd Pox Aj y
where the upstream pressure was measured during
the static test and the temperature assumed to be at
ambient conditions. An effective average regression rate
for the fuel was determined bY;
ro = F [ ( rhox + pf ro SA )/Ap 10 (6)

This equation assumes that all regression occurs
only in the bore and does not occur at ttre exposed ends
of the grain. The characteristic velocity is dehned as,
C*=JtrAgdt+ Itrt*ro*)dt e)
This was determined from the average chamber
pressure, measured throat diameter, and experimentally
derived total mass flow rate
IIII = ffiox + mf (8)
Critical Design Issues
The critical design issues observed from the seven
static tests are;
. severe nozzle throat erosion due to high temperature
(>5000oD oxygen rqrction.
. oxygen. Having accomplished that aspect of the
case metals must be insulated from hot gas
environment
r v&rying combustion efficiency due to changing
mixture ratio
. associated with a graphite/epoxy filament wound
High pressure oxygen storage vs chamber pressure
and burn time
. Non-linear scale effects for small hybrid motors
. Recycled HDPE and possible alternatives. Completion
Higher inert system weights for small scale hybrid
motors
. Non-uniform regression rates (a,xial & radial)
These issues pose a challenge to the propulsion
designer. However, more work in these areas will bring
maturity to hybrid motors that will offer greater overall
benefits than either solid or liquid rocket motors.
Flight Design Concept
In order to minimize the overall system inert
weights for a gaseous oxygen hybrid rocket motor, it
was necess ry to incorporate the high pressure oxygen
vessel as part of the flight design concept To achieve
ma:rimum performance for a high pressure vessel, lead
to the selection of a graphite/epoxy filament wound
pressure bottle with an aluminum liner. lJulizing a 5
micron diameter filament in a 12,000 filament per tow
(Amoco T-900) p're-impregnated with Fiberite LRF 545
resin yielded a performance capability of 8 ,2W psi with
a margin of safety greater than 3. Total bottle weight
with aluminum liner and gel coat was less than 4
pounds. The T-900 fiber is an expensive aerospace
grade fiber that was selected based on it's availability at
the Productivity Enhancement Labs managed by
Thiokol Corporation at Marshal Space Flight Center.
Because of the experience base at this faciliry using this
material and the low level of material required (less than
5 pounds) an extremely robust design was afforded with
little or no risk of stnrctural failure. More cost effective
materials and realistic production designs would greatly
reduce the cost of this component. However, the
Page 5
filament winding process is an automated low-cost
manufacturing process that can easily support increased
production rates and supports the low-cost objective of
this project.
A butane type igniter would reduce the set-up time
and allow for start-stop-res tart capability during a
rajectory flight. The case must be designed to allow
for easy loading of the fuel grains and the insulating of
all exposed case materials. The nozzle design should be
a one piece molded nozzle with a silicone-carbide throat
insert. The nozzle would be secured by a spanner ring
threaded to the aft end of the case.
Future Activities
The long term and ultimate goal for this project is
to fly a prototype hybrid rocket motor. To achieve that
goal this project was undertaken to demonstrate the
ability to reliably initiate and maintain motor burn
utilizing recycled thermoplastic fuel and gaseous
project, system modifications were evaluated to allow
for flight of the hybrid motor. The key to the flight
design would be the pressurized bottle containing the
gaseous oxygen. The performance-to-weight advantages
pressure bottle, along with the relatively compact size
iead to it's selection for the flight concept. However,
more testing is needed to gather data on PMMA,
and testing of the high pressure (8,200 psi) oxygen
storage bottle. Further testing is also needed to better
understand thermal protection within the motor. The
next step will be to design a hybrid rocket system that
will fit within a 5.7 5 inch diameter sounding rocket,
which will be launched sometime next year.
Conclusions
This project was successful in demonsrating that
valuable data can be obtained from "off-the-shelf"
hardware and that this data can be used to develop and
optimized design of a low cost Hybrid flight motor.
Gained valuable experience in the design of hybrid
rocket motors. More work is needed to optimize a
design.
This project has successfully demonstrated the
inherent safety of the hybrid rocket motor using gaseous
oxygen.
Demonstrated the viability of thermoplastic fuels.
However did not collect enough data to validate the burn
rate model for thermoplastics.
The project was successful in validating computer
design models at extremely low costs, relative to typical
aerospace approach.
 American Automated Engineering , Inc. for high
Nomenclature temperature insulation materials and a special
thanks to Darryl Thornton for his interest and
c[ Burn ratn exponent support.
p Burn Rate Constant Sign Great Lakes Carbon Colp. for Graphite Nozzle
Ap Port Area Q"2) Throat Materiats GK-71 &, HLM85).
At Throat Area (in2) Loctite & Permatex for high Temperattue Silicon
Aj Injector Area (in2) Adhesive and Filler samples.
c* Characteristic velocity (ftlsec)
Cd Discharge coefficient
Di Initial bore diameter (in)
d Delta time (sec)
References
Am Change in fuel mass
Ar Change in bore radius 1) G.P. SUTTON, ROCKET PROPUI^SION ELEMENTS
Dt Throat Diameter 6th Edition, ISBN 0-471-52938-9, 1992
v Specific heat ratio Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
0n
D{- 32.17 4 (tbm - ftllb f- sec2)

9o* Oxygen mass flux (lbm/in2lsec! 2) P.N. Estey and G.R. Whittinghill, HYBRID
IIIOx Oxygen mass flow rarc (lbm/sec) RCf, KET MCrIOR PROPEIIA]VT S ELECTION
rhl Fuel mass flow rate (lbm/sec) AUTERNATTVES
rh1 Total mass flow rate (lbm/sec) ArAA 92-3592
olF Oxidizer/Fuel ratio (w0 American Rocket Company (AMROC)
Pc Motor chamber pressure (psi) Camarillo, CA
Po* Pressure - Oxygen injector pressure
NT Nozzle throat efficiency 3) B. Greiner and Dr. R. A. Frederick, Jr., RESULTS
Thrust efficiency OFLABSCALE HTtsRID ROCKET MOTOR
NF
IE 3.14159 IN\CSTIGATION
fg Fuel regression ratelburnrate (ir/sec) AIAA 92-3307
Ro* Gas constant for oxygen Propulsion Research Center
University of Alabama in Huntsville
pf Fuel densiry ltUs/in3)
Se Su{ace area of bore Gn2) 4) K.E. Adams and F.'W. Jordan, COMPUTER STATIC
Tox Static temperature - O*ygen injector FIRING ANALYSIS TECHMQT]ES OF SOLID
l, Exit divergence factor PROPELLANIT ROCKET MOTORS
OD Outer Diameter Atlantic Research Corporation
ID Inter Diameter Gainsville, VA
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
PMMA Polymethyl-methylacrilate (Plexiglas)
R-I{DPE Recycled High Density Polyethylene t C.E. Thies and F.W. Jordan, EFFECTS OF NOZZLE
CONFIGURATION ANID DEFECTS ON MOTOR
EFFICIENCY
Acknowledgments
ArAA 81-1379
Aerojet Corporation for technical expertise and for Atlantic Research Corporation
Gainsville, VA
support to present this paper at the 29ft Joint
Propulsion Conference. A special thanks to Jack
Sohl and Phil Crimmins for their support in this o NASA SP-8076, SOUD PROPELLAIIT GRAIN
unique project. DESIGN AND INTERNAL BALUSTICS
lvlarch 1972
North Alabama Ballistics Lab (NABL) and Sam National Aeronautics and Space Adminisfation
Schlueter, Facility Director, for use of the facilities
at nearly anytime.
Pacific Instnrments and to Don Seyk, VP of Marketing
and Doug Allen, PD Mgr., for the gracious use of
the BAKKER 2570-P data acquisition system.

Page 6
 Thermoplastic Fuel
Steel End Cap
with
3/1 6" No zzle

Gox -=+

lgniter
Assembly
ANSI 150 2" Schedule 40
Flanges Steel Pipe

Figure 1: Pipe Chamber Gonfiguration

lgniter Glass-Filled
Cartridge Thermoplastic Fuel Phenolic lnsulator

Gox -t

RTV Insulation EK-71 GraPhite

Nozzle lnsert
GN2 -
304 Stainless
Steel Chamber

Figure 2= Static Test chamber Gonfiguration

 Q
L-
o o
O
5Fr
(tr -)
rlt

F a
IJ
(-
L
o r-a
(g
o
(- \-
- F
o
= L-
t
J
o
cn
o
f-
€
#7,
CL
?
FJ F.
rl- 9n
.E E
6 t-
o
)L-
E-.Cl)
O .=
lC

-(l,
.t-

5c
-

s
El
IJ
G
b
+$ a=
o -" F
J 6od rr.
I O
\"/
-RI r-=
H
fi;
(f)
*.
(f,
cn' o
o F
tr)
F tt
b
'= -(tr cr)
oo --r o
o
L-
(t)=
t-a
u
a-
rl
J
E€ 6
?
U)
ir
xt' F
--
o Ir

(5 o
?
b
CL
.rl
tr,
E
=tr
cu o
e o
Ir

- ftl
ts gS
Eb;
? .rl
b
(g trr -
Lr, (tr
+. o
F
U)
?t f-,)
o o
-Ea

o tf)
F
Test #58 r Thrust Trace

FESULT
LBS
t.74e+01
0.00e+00
t .24e*0 0/dI

-2. 000e+00 1.024e+00 second /Otv L .847 a+0 t

FESULT
LBS
t .57e+0 1
0.00e+00
t.!2e+00/dt

-7 .200e-01 I . 522e-01 seconcl./d lv 2.325e+00

Figure 4= Thrust Trace

 Preliminary Performance Model
for Polyethylene Thermoplastic
Table:1

otF sF" C' (f t/sec )

0 .00 0 0
0.25 144 3304
0.50 lo/ 37 64
1.00 198 4438
1.50 243 5452
2.00 255 57 27
2.50 252 5641
3.00 245 5495
3.50 239 SAPA
5J5b
5.00 224 5031
10.00 197 4431
15.00 178 3981
1 00.00 10 10

Note o: Frozen Fiow, Expansion = 4, Pc = 100 psia, Sea Level

Hybrid Rocket Motor Test Matrix

Table: 2

Pressure Nozzle
Weight Burn Rate Chamber erosion
Test No. Fuel T Time (sec delta Gor Valve
Pipe Chamber
in/sec siq) rate
#1 HDPE 20 0.391 ^
#2
b 0.0 291 10
HDPE 11.4 0.091 2.5 0.0155 5 0.039
#3 R.HDPE 18 0.3g1 1.5 0.0 057 5 0.017
#44 HDPE 1 4.1 0.091 2 0.0 05 100 0
#48 HDPE 15 0.170 4 0.0075 190 0
#sA HDPE 15 4.177 6 0.0095 207 0.002
#sB HDPE 18 0.264 6 0.0095 207 0.002