# Challenges of Ablatively Cooled Hybrid Rockets for Satellites or Upper Stages

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Hybrid Rocket Combustion Chamber Sizing

_{max}:

_{max}but even the R

_{min}necessary for a good volume loading. This is the typical problem of boosters that is repeatedly discussed in the hybrid literature. However, in this paper, an often overlooked opposite situation is highlighted, which is typical of the application under consideration, i.e., satellites and upper stages. If the thrust is low and the burning time is very long, the value of a can result to be too low and incompatible with any of the classical polymeric fuels that have been successfully used for hybrid propulsion. On a few occasions, some fuels have been used with even lower regression rates (such as blocks of graphite) but without the same combustion performance.

_{max}for maximum packaging) the length of the grain is proportional only to the burning time, not to the thrust of the motor. This result seems counter-intuitive, as in general it is expected that a larger motor is also longer. Moreover, for the same total impulse, an increase in the burning time should shorten the motor, not the opposite. Nevertheless, in the common literature, the regression rate level is considered as constant, while in this analysis the regression rate is tailored to achieve but not overcome R

_{max}. As already pointed out, this is not always possible at the two extremes of the range of allowable regression rate levels.

_{max,}two motors with different propellant masses (i.e., total impulse and thrust) will have the same length as the smaller motor needs to burn with a lower regression rate level (e.g., changing the fuel or the injection pattern) in order to keep the web thickness proportional to the smaller initial port diameter.

## 3. Satellites and Spacecrafts

#### 3.1. Current Status Quo

^{TM}motor series, it is possible to note that, even with a certain level of data dispersion due to the different design requirements, the burning time of the solid motors tend to increase with the scale of the motor, from a dozen of seconds at few hundred newtons up to asymptotically reach a value around 100 s at dozens of kN. This implies that an increase in total impulse is necessarily related with an increase in motor thrust. On the contrary, the typical radiative in-space small liquid engine has virtually an unlimited firing time (on the order of hours), so it can provide a large total impulse at very low thrust. Liquid engines operate for a long burning time for several reasons: keep the engine and fluidic size/mass/cost/emitted heat at a minimum, limit the spacecraft acceleration, operate at low pressures with a benefit on the pressurization budget and chamber thermal loads without compromising the engine size.

#### 3.2. Hybrid Analysis

- The satellite/spacecraft is limited by a maximum allowable acceleration;
- No significant acceleration limits are considered;
- The satellite/spacecraft requires a minimum acceleration level for a specific maneuver.

#### 3.3. Heat Soak-Back and Fuel Issue for Satellites

## 4. Upper Stages

#### 4.1. Current Status Quo

#### 4.2. Hybrid Analysis

_{2}O

_{2}) and two fuels, a high regressing one (such as paraffin wax) and a low regressing one (such as HDPE, [High Density PolyEthylene]). The specific impulse was fixed to 340 s for the LOX combinations and to 300 s for the H

_{2}O

_{2}ones. The regression rate coefficients for LOX-paraffin have been defined as a = 0.117 and n = 0.62 [31] (with G

_{ox}in kg/m

^{2}s and $\dot{r}$ in mm/s); for H

_{2}O

_{2}–paraffin a = 0.15 and n = 0.5 [37]. The regression rate of the HDPE cases was fixed as five times lower than the paraffin one [31]. The paraffin fuel density was set to 930 kg/m

^{3}while the HDPE density to 950 kg/m

^{3}. The mixture ratio for the LOX combinations was set equal to 2.7, while 7.5 was chosen for the H

_{2}O

_{2}combinations. The initial oxidizer flux was fixed to 500 kg/m

^{2}·s. The internal diameter D

_{0}was calculated from the oxidizer mass flow and initial mass flux while the external diameter was calculated with the following equation:

_{f}can be determined. The results are shown in the following Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6.

_{2}O

_{2}is lower than that with LOX, so the diameter ratio is higher with the latter. The length to diameter ratio of the grain is much lower for H

_{2}O

_{2}thanks to its higher optimal mixture ratio and, consequently much lower fuel mass. For very long burning times (relative to the thrust level), the paraffin motors turn out to have too high diameter ratios and sometimes too low L/D

_{f}(the latter particularly for H

_{2}O

_{2}). On the contrary, reducing the regression rate with the HDPE fuel makes the diameter ratio more manageable but significantly increases the L/D

_{f}to values that are generally not acceptable.

_{f}tabulated values refer to the grain, not to the whole stage. As the majority of the propellant is the oxidizer, it is easy to understand that, if the oxidizer is placed in a tank with the same diameter of the grain, the total length to diameter ratio will be more compatible with a booster than an upper stage. The only way to achieve a very low hybrid stage length to diameter ratio with a serial configuration is to use a cluster of combustion chambers or a multiport grain, but both solutions come with several drawbacks and have a significant impact on the inert mass of the stage, which is a fundamental parameter for an upper stage. Therefore, it is necessary to place the oxidizer in a different way. Three possible solutions have been presented by Karabeyoglu [9] as shown in Figure 5.

_{2}O

_{2}is preferable when the orbital mission duration becomes relevant. Metal additives [40] can increase the specific impulse and fuel density but they generally also operate at lower optimal mixture ratios.

#### 4.3. Heat Soak-Back, Fuel Issue, and Orbit Insertion for Upper Stages

## 5. Conclusions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## Nomenclature

a, n | regression rate law coefficients |

D_{0} | initial port diameter |

D_{f} | final port diameter |

D_{t} | nozzle throat diameter |

$\dot{er}$ | nozzle throat erosion rate |

G_{0} | initial port oxidizer mass flux |

G_{ox} | port oxidizer mass flux |

G_{max} | maximum (initial) port oxidizer mass flux |

I_{tot} | total impulse |

L | fuel length |

${\dot{m}}_{ox}$ | oxidizer mass flow |

p_{c} | chamber pressure |

$\dot{r}$ | fuel regression rate |

R | diameter ratio |

R_{min} | minimum diameter ratio |

R_{max} | maximum diameter ratio |

t_{b} | burning time |

T | thrust |

V_{fuel} | fuel grain volume |

ΔV | spacecraft velocity increment |

## References

- Altman, D.; Holzman, A. Overview and history of hybrid rocket propulsion. In Fundamentals of Hybrid Rocket Combustion and Propulsion; Chiaverini, M.J., Kuo, K.K., Eds.; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston, VA, USA, 2007; Volume 218, pp. 1–36. [Google Scholar]
- Ordahl, D.D.; Rains, W.A. Recent Developments and Current Status of Hybrid Rocket Propulsion. J. Spacecr. Rocket.
**1965**, 2, 923–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kuo, K.K.; Chiaverini, M.J. Challenges of hybrid rocket propulsion in the 21st century. In Fundamentals of Hybrid Rocket Combustion and Propulsion; Chiaverini, M.J., Kuo, K.K., Eds.; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston, VA, USA, 2007; Volume 218, pp. 593–638. [Google Scholar]
- Mazzetti, A.; Merotto, L.; Pinarello, G. Paraffin-based hybrid rocket engines applications: A review and a market perspective. Acta Astronaut.
**2016**, 126, 286–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Barato, F.; Bellomo, N.; Pavarin, D. Integrated approach for hybrid rocket technology development. Acta Astronaut.
**2016**, 128, 257–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Martin, F.; Chapelle, A.; Orlandi, O.; Yvart, P. Hybrid propulsion systems for future space applications; AIAA Paper 2010–6633. In Proceedings of the 46th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Nashville, TN, USA, 25–28 July 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Barato, F.; Ghilardi, M.; Santi, M.; Pavarin, D. Numerical optimization of hybrid sounding rockets through coupled motor trajectory simulation; AIAA Paper 2016–4749. In Proceedings of the 52nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 25–27 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Karabeyoglu, M.A.; Falconer, T.; Cantwell, B.J.; Stevens, J. Design of an orbital hybrid rocket vehicle launched from Canberra Air Platform; AIAA Paper 2005–4096. In Proceedings of the 41st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Tucson, AZ, USA, 10–13 July 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Karabeyoglu, M.A.; Stevens, J.; Geyzel, D.; Cantwell, B. High performance hybrid upper stage motor; AIAA Paper 2011–6025. In Proceedings of the 47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, San Diego, CA, USA, 31 July–3 August 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Casalino, L.; Masseni, F.; Pastrone, D. Viability of an electrically driven pump-fed hybrid rocket for small launcher upper stages. Aerospace
**2019**, 6, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Boman, N.; Ford, M. Design of a hybrid propulsion system for orbit raising applications. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Green Propellants for Space Propulsion (ESA SP-557), Chia Laguna, Italy, 7–8 June 2004; Wilson, A., Ed.; European Space Agency: Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Lengellé, G.; Foucaud, R.; Godon, J.C.; Heslouin, A.; Lecourt, R.; Maisonneuve, Y. Hybrid propulsion for small satellites analysis and tests; AIAA Paper 99–2321. In Proceedings of the 35th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 20–24 June 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Da Cás, P.L.K.; Vilanova, C.Q.; Barcelos, M.N.D., Jr.; Veras, C.A.G. An optimized hybrid rocket motor for the SARA platform reentry system. J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag.
**2012**, 4, 317–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Vilanova, C.Q.; Da Cas, P.L.K.; Barcelos, M.N.D., Jr.; Veras, C.A.G. Multidisciplinary design optimization of a de-boost hybrid motor for the Brazilian recoverable satellite. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Engineering Optimization, Lisbon, Portugal, 6–9 September 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Gibbon, D.M.; Haag, G.S. Investigation of an Alternative Geometry Hybrid Rocket for Small Spacecraft Orbit Transfer; DTIC Technical Report, AD No. 393398; Surrey Satellite Technology: Surrey, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- De Luca, L.; Bernelli-Zazzera, F.; Maggi, F.; Tadini, P.; Pardini, C.; Anselmo, L.; Belokonov, I. Active space debris removal by hybrid engine module. In Proceedings of the 63rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Naples, Italy, 1–5 October 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Wagner, K.R.; Schmucker, R.H. Hybrid rockets for space applications—A critical assessment; AIAA Paper 1992–3305. In Proceedings of the 28th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Nashville, TN, USA, 6–8 July1992. [Google Scholar]
- Casillas, E.D.; Shaeffer, C.W.; Trowbridge, J.C. Cost and performance payoffs inherent in increased fuel regression rates; AIAA Paper 1997–3081. In Proceedings of the AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 33rd Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Seattle, WA, USA, 6–9 July 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Orlandi, O.; Theil, D.; Saramago, J.; Amand, P.G.; Dauch, F.; Gautier, P. Various challenging aspects of hybrid propulsion. Prog. Propuls. Phys.
**2011**, 2, 375–388. [Google Scholar] - Barato, F.; Bellomo, N.; Faenza, M.; Lazzarin, M.; Bettella, A.; Pavarin, D. Numerical model to analyze transient behavior and instabilities on hybrid rocket motors. J. Propuls. Power
**2015**, 31, 643–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pastrone, D. Approaches to low fuel regression rate in hybrid rocket engines. Int. J. Aerosp. Eng.
**2012**, XX, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Karabeyoglu, M.A.; Zilliac, G.; Cantwell, B.J.; De Zilwa, S.; Castellucci, P. Scale-up tests of high regression rate paraffin-based hybrid rocket fuels. J. Propuls. Power
**2004**, 20, 1037–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kobald, M.; Fischer, U.; Tomilin, K.; Petrarolo, A.; Schmierer, C. Hybrid experimental rocket Stuttgart: A low-cost technology demonstrator. J. Spacecr. Rocket.
**2018**, 55, 484–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bellomo, N.; Lazzarin, M.; Barato, F.; Bettella, A.; Pavarin, D.; Grosse, M. Investigation of effect of diaphragms on the efficiency of hybrid rockets. J. Propuls. Power
**2014**, 30, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bellomo, N.; Barato, F.; Faenza, M.; Lazzarin, M.; Bettella, A.; Pavarin, D. Numerical and experimental investigation of unidirectional vortex injection in hybrid rocket engines rockets. J. Propuls. Power
**2013**, 29, 1097–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Paccagnella, E.; Barato, F.; Pavarin, D.; Karabeyoğlu, M.A. Scaling Parameters of swirling oxidizer injection in hybrid rocket motors. J. Propuls. Power
**2017**, 33, 1378–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ronningen, J.E.; Husdal, J. Nammo Hybrid Rocket Propulsion TRL Improvement Program; AIAA Paper 2012–4311. In Proceedings of the 48th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Atlanta, GA, USA, 30 July 2012–1 August 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ruffin, A.; Paccagnella, E.; Santi, M.; Barato, F.; Pavarin, D. Real-time deep throttling tests of a hydrogen peroxide hybrid rocket motor; AIAA 2019–4266. In Proceedings of the AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2019 Forum, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 19–22 August 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Barato, F.; Paccagnella, E.; Franco, M.; Pavarin, D. Numerical analyses of thermal protection design in hybrid rocket motors; AIAA 2020–3769. In Proceedings of the AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2020 Forum, Virtual Event. 24–28 August 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Barato, F.; Paccagnella, E.; Pavarin, D. Explicit analytical equations for single port hybrid rocket combustion chamber sizing. J. Propuls. Power
**2020**, 36, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Karabeyoglu, M.A.; Cantwell, B.; Stevens, J. Evaluation of homologous series of normal-alkanes as hybrid rocket fuels; AIAA Paper 2005–3908. In Proceedings of the 41st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Tucson, AZ, USA, 10–13 July 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Franco, M.; Barato, F.; Paccagnella, E.; Santi, M.; Battiston, A.; Comazzetto, A.; Pavarin, D. Regression rate design tailoring through vortex injection in hybrid rocket motors. J. Spacecr. Rocket.
**2020**, 57, 278–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chiaverini, M. Review of solid-fuel regression rate behavior in classical and nonclassical hybrid rocket motors. In Fundamentals of Hybrid Rocket Combustion and Propulsion; Chiaverini, M.J., Kuo, K.K., Eds.; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston, VA, USA, 2007; Volume 218, pp. 37–126. [Google Scholar]
- Northrop Grumman. Propulsion Products Catalog. From Northrop Grumman Website. Approved for Public Release OSR No. 16-S-1432. Available online: https://www.northropgrumman.com/ (accessed on 5 April 2016).
- Kearney, D.; Joiner, K.F.; Gnau, M.P.; Casemore, M.A. Improvements to the marketability of hybrid propulsion technologies. In Proceedings of the AIAA SPACE 2007 Conference & Exposition, Long Beach, CA, USA, 18–20 September 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Bjelde, B.; Capozzoli, P.; Shotwell, G. The SpaceX Falcon 1 launch vehicle flight 3 results, future developments, and Falcon 9 evolution. In Proceedings of the 59th International Astronautical Congress, IAC-08-D2.1.03, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 29 September–3 October 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Paccagnella, E.; Santi, M.; Ruffin, A.; Barato, F.; Pavarin, D.; Misté, G.; Venturelli, G.; Bellomo, N. Testing of a long-burning-time paraffin-based hybrid rocket motor. J. Propuls. Power
**2019**, 35, 432–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Barato, F.; Bettella, A.; Pavarin, D. Numerical investigation of pressure-fed solutions for paraffin based hybrid rocket motors; AIAA 2013–3897. In Proceedings of the 49th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, San Jose, CA, USA, 14–17 July 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Delamata, A.; Besnard, E.; Bostwick, C. Fuel trade study for a nanosat launch vehicle upper stage; AIAA Paper 2010–6804. In Proceedings of the 46th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Nashville, TN, USA, 25–28 July 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Shark, S.; Sippel, T.; Son, S.; Heister, S.; Pourpoint, T. Theoretical performance analysis of metal hydride fuel additives for rocket propellant applications. In Proceedings of the 47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, San Diego, CA, USA, 31 July–3 August 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Barato, F.; Grosse, M.; Bettella, A. Hybrid rocket residuals: An overlooked topic; AIAA Paper 2014–3753. In Proceedings of the 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Cleveland, OH, USA, 28–30 July 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Barato, F.; Toson, E.; Pavarin, D. Variations and control of thrust and mixture ratio in hybrid rocket motors. Adv. Astronaut. Sci. Technol.
**2021**, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Culver, D.W. Comparison of forward and aft injected hybrid rocket boosters. In Proceedings of the 27th AIAA/SAE/ASME Joint Propulsion Conference, Sacramento, CA, USA, 24–26 June 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Usuki, T.; Shimada, T. Improvement on thrust profile flexibility by oxidizer-to-fuel ratio feedback control in hybrid rocket. In Proceedings of the 66th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Jerusalem, Israel, 12–16 October 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Ozawa, K.; Usuki, T.; Mishima, G.; Kitagawa, K.; Yamashita, M.; Mizuchi, M.; Katakami, K.; Maji, Y.; Aso, S.; Tani, Y. Static burning tests on a bread board model of altering-intensity swirling oxidizer-flow-type hybrid rocket engine. In Proceedings of the 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 25–27 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Shimada, T.; Usuki, T. Conceptual study on flight demonstration of mixture-ratio-controlled throttling of hybrid rocket. In Proceedings of the 67th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Guadalajara, Mexico, 26–30 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Ozawa, K.; Shimada, T. Flight performance simulations of vertical launched sounding rockets using altering-intensity swirling-oxidizer-flow type hybrid motors. In Proceedings of the 51st AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, 27–29 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Ozawa, K.; Shimada, T. A theoretical study on throttle ranges of O/F controllable hybrid rocket propulsion systems. J. Fluid Sci. Technol.
**2018**, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]

**Figure 1.**Examples of hybrid rocket design limits for satellites: (

**a**) Propellant mass vs. thrust; (

**b**) Velocity increment vs. thrust for different maximum allowable accelerations. Reprinted with permission from ref. [30]. Copyright 2020 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

**Figure 2.**Examples of liquid propelled space tugs: (

**a**) NPO Lavochkin Fregat (Soyuz/Zenit); (

**b**) GKNPTs Khrunichev Briz-M (Proton). Note the extremely compact length to diameter ratio and the propellant tank arrangement. Copyright: publicly available pictures on the internet.

**Figure 3.**Examples of upper stages for small launch vehicles: (

**a**) Liquid propelled SpaceX Falcon 1; (

**b**) ORPHEE Hybrid Upper Stage proposal. Note the relatively high length to diameter ratio of the serial hybrid and the compact packaging of the common bulkhead liquid propellant design. (

**a**) Reprinted with permission from ref. [36]. Copyright 2008 International Astronautical Federation. (

**b**) Reprinted with permission from ref. [6]. Copyright 2010 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

**Figure 4.**Examples of solid rocket upper stages: (

**a**) Avio Zefiro 9 (Vega); (

**b**) Northrop Grumman Star 48 (Minotaur IV). Note the very compact length to diameter ratio. (

**a**) Reprinted with permission from https://www.avio.com/ (accessed on 9 July 2021). Copyright 2021 Avio. (

**b**) Reprinted with permission from ref. [34]. Copyright 2016 Northrop Grumman.

**Figure 5.**Examples of hybrid upper stage arrangements: (

**a**) Serial; (

**b**) Toroidal; (

**c**) Multiple tanks. Reprinted with permission from ref. [9]. Copyright 2011 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

**Figure 6.**Sampling of Scorpius

^{®}[USA] Composite Tanks (1.7 MPa MEOP (250 psi)): Volume vs. Tank mass factor. Reprinted with permission from ref. [39]. Copyright 2010 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Model (Stage/Launcher) | Manufacturer | Country |
---|---|---|

RD-843 (AVUM-Vega) | Yuzhmash | Ukraine |

17D64 (Volga-Soyuz) | KB Melnikov | Russia |

S5.98M (Briz-Proton) | KBKhM | Russia |

S5.92 (Fregat-Zenit) | KBKhM | Russia |

Rutherford (Electron) | RocketLab | USA-New Zealand |

Aestus (Ariane 5) | Airbus Defence and Space | Europe |

Kestrel (Falcon 1) | SpaceX | USA |

Orion 38 (Pegasus) | Northrop Grumman | USA |

HM7B (Ariane 5 ECA) | Snecma | France |

RL10 (Centaur) | Aerojet Rocketdyne | USA |

Vinci (Ariane 6) | ArianeGroup | Europe |

Zefiro 9 (Vega) | Avio | Italy |

Castor 30 (Antares) | Northrop Grumman | USA |

Merlin 1D (Falcon 9) | SpaceX | USA |

Model (Stage/Launcher) | Thrust (kN) | Burning Time (s) |
---|---|---|

RD-843 (AVUM-Vega) | 2.45 | 300–600 |

17D64 (Volga-Soyuz) | 2.94 | 600 |

S5.98M (Briz-Proton) | 19.6 | 3000 |

S5.92 (Fregat-Zenit) | 19.85 | 1350 |

Rutherford (Electron) | 26 | 258–373 |

Aestus (Ariane 5) | 27 | 1170 |

Kestrel (Falcon 1) | 31 | 378 |

Orion 38 (Pegasus) | 32 | 67.7 |

HM7B (Ariane 5 ECA) | 67 | 945 |

RL10 (Centaur) | 110 | 400–700–1125 |

Vinci (Ariane 6) | 180 | 900 |

Zefiro 9 (Vega) | 314 | 117 |

Castor 30 (Antares) | 300–500 | 127–156 |

Merlin 1D (Falcon 9) | 934 | 397 |

Reference Model | Grain R = D_{0}/D_{f} | Grain L/D_{f} |
---|---|---|

RD-843 (AVUM-Vega) | 11–15 | 1.3–1.1 |

17D64 (Volga-Soyuz) | 14 | 1.1 |

S5.98M (Briz-Proton) | 19 | 0.9 |

S5.92 (Fregat-Zenit) | 13 | 1.1 |

Rutherford (Electron) | 5.9–7 | 2.1–1.9 |

Aestus (Ariane 5) | 11.5 | 1.3 |

Kestrel (Falcon 1) | 6.8 | 1.9 |

Orion 38 (Pegasus) | 3.2 | 3.4 |

HM7B (Ariane 5 ECA) | 8.5 | 1.6 |

RL10 (Centaur) | 5.2–6.7–8.3 | 2.3–1.9–1.6 |

Vinci (Ariane 6) | 6.7 | 1.9 |

Zefiro 9 (Vega) | 2.5 | 4.1 |

Castor 30 (Antares) | 2.6 | 4 |

Merlin 1D (Falcon 9) | 3.3 | 3.3 |

Reference Model | Grain R = D_{0}/D_{f} | Grain L/D_{f} |
---|---|---|

RD-843 (AVUM-Vega) | 10–14 | 0.6–0.4 |

17D64 (Volga-Soyuz) | 13 | 0.4 |

S5.98M (Briz-Proton) | 18 | 0.3 |

S5.92 (Fregat-Zenit) | 12 | 0.4 |

Rutherford (Electron) | 5–6 | 1.1–0.9 |

Aestus (Ariane 5) | 10.5 | 0.5 |

Kestrel (Falcon 1) | 5.8 | 0.9 |

Orion 38 (Pegasus) | 2.6 | 2 |

HM7B (Ariane 5 ECA) | 7.6 | 0.7 |

RL10 (Centaur) | 4.4–5.8–7.3 | 1.2–0.9–0.7 |

Vinci (Ariane 6) | 5.8 | 0.9 |

Zefiro 9 (Vega) | 2.1 | 2.6 |

Castor 30 (Antares) | 2.1 | 2.5 |

Merlin 1D (Falcon 9) | 2.7 | 2 |

Reference Model | Grain R = D_{0}/D_{f} | Grain L/D_{f} |
---|---|---|

RD-843 (AVUM-Vega) | 5–7 | 11–9 |

17D64 (Volga-Soyuz) | 6.8 | 9.2 |

S5.98M (Briz-Proton) | 9.2 | 7.4 |

S5.92 (Fregat-Zenit) | 6.4 | 9.7 |

Rutherford (Electron) | 3–3.5 | 18–16 |

Aestus (Ariane 5) | 5.6 | 11 |

Kestrel (Falcon 1) | 3.4 | 16 |

Orion 38 (Pegasus) | 1.75 | 27 |

HM7B (Ariane 5 ECA) | 4.2 | 13 |

RL10 (Centaur) | 2.7–3.3–4 | 19–16–14 |

Vinci (Ariane 6) | 3.4 | 16 |

Zefiro 9 (Vega) | 1.5 | 32 |

Castor 30 (Antares) | 1.5 | 31 |

Merlin 1D (Falcon 9) | 1.8 | 27 |

Reference Model | Grain R = D_{0}/D_{f} | Grain L/D_{f} |
---|---|---|

RD-843 (AVUM-Vega) | 4–6 | 6–4 |

17D64 (Volga-Soyuz) | 5.9 | 4.4 |

S5.98M (Briz-Proton) | 8.2 | 3.2 |

S5.92 (Fregat-Zenit) | 5.5 | 4.7 |

Rutherford (Electron) | 2.4–2.8 | 11–9 |

Aestus (Ariane 5) | 4.8 | 5.5 |

Kestrel (Falcon 1) | 2.8 | 9.5 |

Orion 38 (Pegasus) | 1.5 | 18 |

HM7B (Ariane 5 ECA) | 3.5 | 7.5 |

RL10 (Centaur) | 2.2–2.7–3.4 | 12–9.6–7.7 |

Vinci (Ariane 6) | 2.7 | 9.5 |

Zefiro 9 (Vega) | 1.3 | 20 |

Castor 30 (Antares) | 1.3 | 20 |

Merlin 1D (Falcon 9) | 1.5 | 17 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Barato, F.
Challenges of Ablatively Cooled Hybrid Rockets for Satellites or Upper Stages. *Aerospace* **2021**, *8*, 190.
https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8070190

**AMA Style**

Barato F.
Challenges of Ablatively Cooled Hybrid Rockets for Satellites or Upper Stages. *Aerospace*. 2021; 8(7):190.
https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8070190

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Barato, Francesco.
2021. "Challenges of Ablatively Cooled Hybrid Rockets for Satellites or Upper Stages" *Aerospace* 8, no. 7: 190.
https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8070190