4th Responsive Space Conference

RS4-2006-4004

Sounding Rocket
Technology Demonstration
for Small Satellite
Launch Vehicle Project
John Tsohas, Lloyd J. Droppers,
Stephen D. Heister
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN

4th Responsive Space Conference

April 2427, 2006
Los Angeles, CA

AIAA-RS4 2006- 4004

Sounding Rocket Technology Demonstration for Small

Satellite Launch Vehicle Project
John Tsohas1, Lloyd J. Droppers2, and Stephen D. Heister3
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47906

Purdue University is embarking on a program to

demonstrate technologies critical to the
development of a small satellite launch vehicle.
The first phase of the program involves design,
fabrication, testing and flight of a hybrid
propulsion sounding rocket from the NASA
Wallops flight facility. This paper details the
design and test work that has been achieved to
date. Propulsion work includes successful hot fire
tests of a flight weight, 170 lbf thrust hydrogen
peroxide / HTPB hybrid rocket motor at the
Purdue rocket test facilities. The tests confirmed
the structural integrity of the engine, verified the
thermal insulation ablator design, helped
determine solid grain regression rate and verified
the engine performance characteristics with the
internal ballistics simulation code. Detailed design
of vehicle plumbing, structure, propulsion,
avionics, and recovery subsystems has been
completed. The rocket consists of a carbon-fiber
composite aero-structure, welded aluminum
oxidizer tank, and a fiberglass composite internal
structure. A nitrogen blowdown system is used to
provide the engine with oxidizer, and the recovery
system has dual redundancy. In addition, detailed
design has been completed on the ground support
equipment used for remote loading and draining
operations of liquid hydrogen peroxide to and
from the vehicle, while monitoring critical vehicle
parameters. Remote disconnect of umbilical cords,
engine ignition, launch and aborts are also
functions of the ground support equipment. A
trajectory analysis and vehicle aerodynamics code
was developed to design the vehicle geometry,
stability, and mass allocation. Follow-on flights of
the technology demonstration vehicle will include
1

the addition of a pressure fed cycle and a thrust

vector system with associated guidance and
control hardware and software.
The second phase of the paper details the
conceptual design of a small satellite launch
vehicle designed to place 10 lb university or
research payloads in low Earth orbit. In order to
make use of the already existing rocket test
facilities at Purdue and to keep test costs low, the
thrust of the first stage engine was constrained to
less than 10,000 lbf. To reduce costs associated
with structural design, analysis and
manufacturing, a three stage launch vehicle with a
low propellant mass fraction for each stage (77%)
would be designed. Hybrid propulsion would be
used due to its relative simplicity and safety over
liquid bi-propellant systems. Hydrogen peroxide
would be used as an oxidizer due to the high
density Isp and its non-toxic, and non-cryogenic
properties. This would lead to a reduction in
operations costs and increased safety in propellant
handling in comparison with other candidate
oxidizers. A small composite solid propellant third
stage would provide the final delta-V at the
desired orbital altitude. Thus, a three stage launch
vehicle with a GLOW of 6,275 lb and 8,790 lbf
thrust first stage engine would satisfy the above
design requirements.
Nomenclature

HTPB
LOX
c*

GOX

=
=
=
=
=

hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene

liquid Oxygen
characteristic velocity
density
oxidizer flux

Graduate PhD Student, School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Purdue University.

Graduate Masters Student, School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Purdue University.
3
Professor, School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Purdue University.
1 of 15
4th Responsive Space Conference 2006
2

INTRODUCTION
development program has been initiated at
Purdue University School of Aeronautics and
Astronautics to demonstrate technologies critical to
the development of a small satellite launch vehicle.
The first phase of the program involves the design,
manufacturing and flight of a sounding rocket
demonstrator at the NASA Wallops Flight Facility.
The sounding rocket will serve as a test-bed for flight
testing critical technologies including ground
support, propulsion, structures, separation, recovery,
telemetry, navigation, guidance and control
subsystems. Each of these technologies will be
demonstrated sequentially over a series of test flights.
This will be achieved by increasing the test-bed
subsystem complexity in each subsequent flight. Insequence flight testing will allow the designers to
validate and fine-tune each of the aforementioned
subsystems before adding more complexity, cost, risk
and features to the technology demonstrator. By not
having to fly all the vehicle subsystems on the
inaugural flight, it is believed that a step-by-step
flight validation approach will help control the design
process, while concurrently reducing development
cost and risk.

The second phase of the program involves design of a

university built small satellite launch vehicle to place
a 10 lb university or research payload in low Earth
orbit. A similar bottom-top approach will be
implemented in the design and flight validation of the
launch vehicle by making use of technologies
demonstrated during the first phase of the program.
Consequently the third (final) stage of the vehicle
will be validated in flight before the second stage is
built. Following the same philosophy, the first stage
will be built after successful flight validation of the
third and second stages together. As mentioned
earlier this incremental approach will serve to control
the design, the cost and the risk associated with new
launch vehicle development.
This paper is divided in two parts. The first part of
the paper details the design and test work that has
been accomplished to date on the technology
demonstration sounding rocket, while the second part
details the conceptual design of the small satellite
launch vehicle.

TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATOR
ROCKET OVERVIEW
Hybrid propulsion was chosen over liquid and solid
propulsion due to cost, complexity and reliability
constraints placed early in the design process. Hybrid
propulsion offers less complexity and higher
reliability than liquid propulsion. Compared to solid
propulsion, hybrid motors offer higher specific
impulse and are safer in operation due to their ability
to be shut down after ignition. Hydrogen peroxide
was chosen as the oxidizer due to its high density Isp
and its non-toxic, and non-cryogenic properties. This
leads to safer propellant handling procedures which
reduces operation costs compared to other oxidizers
such as liquid oxygen. The performance of hydrogen
peroxide outweighs the self-pressurization and
relative safety of nitrous oxide as an oxidizer. In
addition, Purdue University has the facilities as well
as extensive experience with the use of hydrogen
peroxide as a rocket oxidizer. HTPB is the fuel of
choice due to its relatively high performance and
regression rate, material properties and ease of
manufacturing in comparison with other candidate
hybrid fuels, as determined by thermo-chemical
analysis. Table 1 compares performance of various
hybrid oxidizer/fuel propellant combinations.
The technology demonstrator vehicle is designed to
reach an altitude of 25,000 ft, powered by a 250 lbf
thrust engine, for thrust duration of 8 seconds. For the
initial flights, the propellant feed system will operate
in blow-down mode. More specifically, 1/4 of the
oxidizer tank volume will be loaded with hydrogen
peroxide, while the remaining 3/4 will be pressurized
to a 600 psia MEOP with nitrogen. The pressure in
the tank will decay as the liquid oxidizer exits the
tank, thus leading to a gradual decrease in chamber
pressure and consequently thrust. Follow on flights
will include a pressurant tank and regulator in order
to provide a constant 600 psia MEOP ullage pressure.
The initial flights of the vehicle aim to verify the
performance of the propulsion, structure, and
recovery sub-systems, as well as ground support
equipment for remote loading and draining of
hydrogen peroxide oxidizer. The initial flights will
not make use of active guidance, but instead will use
fin stabilization. To maintain the stability margin, the
vehicle will launch at an initial thrust-to-weight ratio
of 4.5. Table A.1 in the appendix presents a detailed
mass breakdown of the demonstrator vehicle. An
overall vehicle schematic is presented if Fig. 1.

2 of 15
4th Responsive Space Conference 2006

5,800 lbs was required to buckle a 0.056 thick quasiisotropic carbon-fiber tube.
The oxidizer pressure vessel was designed with a
safety factor of 2.0 X MEOP and was analyzed using
hand calculations and ABAQUS finite element
analysis software. The tank is manufactured with
aluminum 6061-T6 body and aluminum 4043 weld
filler material. The vessel has been proof tested to 1.5
X MEOP, and additional vibration tests are
scheduled. A pressure relief valve set to 1.15 X
MEOP will ensure that there is no over-pressurization
of the pressure vessel. For added safety, a normally
open solenoid vent valve is installed, to be closed
during flight using lithium battery power. Fiber-glass
is used to manufacture the nose cone, and composite
honeycomb structure is used to make the guidance
fins. The hybrid rocket engine is manufactured from
aluminum 6061-T6, is designed with a factor of
safety of 2, and has been proof tested to 1.5 X
MEOP.

Figure 1. Schematic of sounding rocket

demonstration vehicle

Table 1. Equilibrium composition Performance of

Oxidizer/Fuel propellant combinations (220 psia
Pc, optimally expanded for sea-level (sl) , or
expansion ratio 80 for ISP_vac, density in lb/ft3 at
operating conditions.
Oxidizer/Fuel
98% H2O2 / HTPB
90% H2O2 / HTPB
N2O / HTPB
LOX / HTPB

84.9
82.9
50.2
67.7

O/F
6.1
6.7
7.6
2.1

Ispsl
228.4
222.5
219.5
244.1

Figure 2. Fiber-glass ring for mounting oxidizer

tank to aero-structure.

Ispvac
331.0
325.5
323.7
366.1

STRUCTURAL DESIGN
The airframe of the demonstration vehicle consists of
a 6 diameter carbon-fiber composite cylinder. The
aluminum oxidizer tank is designed to fit inside the
aero-structure, and is held in place by fiber-glass
mounts which are bolted to the airframe as shown in
Fig. 2. Stainless steel, tubing connects the
oxidizer tank to the hybrid rocket motor, which is
fastened to the aero-structure by three 7075-T651
aluminum brackets, as shown in Fig. 3. A finite
element analysis model of aluminum brackets is
shown in Fig. 4. An additional fiber-grass mount is
used to secure the hybrid motor in position. An
eigenvalue buckling analysis shows that a force of

Figure 3. 7075-T651 aluminum brackets for

mounting hybrid motor to aero-structure.

3 of 15
4th Responsive Space Conference 2006

Figure 4. Finite element analysis model of

aluminum brackets.

ENGIRE DESIGN AND HOT FIRE TESTING

A hybrid rocket internal ballistics code was
developed to model the performance of the motor,
and to perform sizing of the rocket engine. The TEP
(Thermal Equilibrium Program) was used to provide
thermo-chemical data to the ballistics code. The
thermo-equilibrium program receives inputs of the
propellant formulation and characteristics, O/F ratio,
area ratios and chamber pressure which it uses to
calculate parameters such as c*, CF, Isp, Tc, and
product molecular composition. The interior ballistics
code uses a quasi-steady, lumped parameter approach
assuming uniform fuel regression along the chamber
length and well mixed flow at the throat. It assumes
a spatially uniform chamber pressure and performs a
mass flow balance with total nozzle flow rate and the
injected oxidizer and vaporized fuel flow rates. The
vaporized solid fuel flow and the total mass flow out
are determined from c*, chamber pressure and throat
area, with the oxidizer flow rate metered by a
cavitating venturi. The regression rate is estimated
based on a simplified model shown in Eq. 1 where a
and n are empirically derived constants. From the
geometry of the port, oxidizer mass flow rate, and
regression rate constants, a chamber pressure and
mixture ratio history are created which in turn yield
the thrust profile.

r = aGox n

(1)

Sub-scale, 25 lbf Thrust Engine Design and Hot

Fire Testing
A 25 lbf thrust, subscale engine was developed to
acquire test data for characterization of the 90%
H2O2/HTPB performance and regression rate under
hot fire test conditions, and to validate the internal
ballistics engine design code before attempting to
scale up to the full-scale, flight-weight engine for the
sounding rocket technology demonstrator. The thrust
chamber was sized to produce 25 lbf of thrust at an
MEOP of 440 psia. Table 2 presents relevant sizing
parameters of the subscale, 25 lbf thrust engine.
Because no data was found on the regression rates of
H2O2/HTPB, the data from the LOX/HTPB
propellant combination were used as a starting point
for initial sizing. Fig. 5 presents a sub-scale engine
schematic.
Six hot fire tests were performed at four different
initial Gox levels, varied from 0.2 lbm/(s-in2) to 0.8
lbm/(s-in2) by changing the initial fuel grain port
diameter. An average c* efficiency of 94% was
obtained from the tests, indicating that acceptable
levels of energy release occurred. Fig. 6 shows a
picture of hot fire testing of the sub-scale engine.
Table 2. Full-Scale Engine Parameters
Chamber Pressure
440
[psi]
Thrust
25
[lbf]
Oxidizer Mass Flow
Rate
0.1
[lbm/s]
Initial O/F ratio
5.5
Predicted average c*
5255
[ft/s]
Fuel Grain Outer Port
Diameter
1.29
[in]
Chamber Length
13
[in]

Figure 5: 25 lbf thrust sub-scale engine schematic

4 of 15
4th Responsive Space Conference 2006

insulation are used to protect the injector face from

combustion gases, as well as the walls of the post
combustion chamber. In addition, high temperature
RTV sealant is applied in the butt-seal joints to
provide additional insulation and sealing.

Figure 6: Picture of 25 lbf thrust sub-scale engine

hot fire test.

Full-scale, 170 lbf Thrust Flight-Weight Engine

Design and Hot Fire Testing
The results from the 25 lbf thrust subscale engine
tests were used to update the internal ballistics model
which was used to design the full-scale engine. Flight
vehicle performance requirements led to a 175 lbf
thrust, flight-weight engine design, operating at an
average O/F ratio of 5.25 and an oxidizer mass flow
rate of 0.68 lbm/sec. Table 3 presents a summary of
the design requirements for the full-scale engine.
The flight-weight engine design differs significantly
from the lab-weight, sub-scale ground test thruster.
With the aid of ABAQUS finite element analysis
software, the 170 lbf thrust flight engine structural
design consists of an internal phenolic liner which
acts as a bonding surface for the HTPB fuel grain, as
well as an insulator between the combustion gases
and the external aluminum chamber. As shown in
Fig. 7, the phenolic tube is inserted inside a 6061-T6
aluminum chamber designed to contain an internal
pressure of 440 psia MEOP. A flanged connection is
used to bolt the injector piece to the aluminum
chamber. To prevent leakage of combustion gases, a
butt-seal between the injector piece and the phenolic
liner is incorporated in the design. A secondary backup seal is created by placing a silicon o-ring between
the injector piece and the combustion chamber as
shown in Fig. 8.
The nozzle uses ablative cooling, and is
manufactured from pressed, discontinuous sheets of
silica phenolic material. The seal on the aft end of the
motor consists of a butt-seal between the nozzle and
the phenolic liner (identical design to injector end
seal). A secondary seal is created by a silicon o-ring
placed between the nozzle and the aluminum
chamber (as shown in Fig. 9). An aluminum retainer
plate is used to hold the nozzle in place, and to
provide positive pressure at the location of the buttseal joint. Sheets of carbon-filled EPDM ablative

The injector consists of stainless steel material,

hollow cone spray, which was sized to provide 0.68
lbm/sec of oxidizer flow rate with a 20% pressure
drop, and with the correct spray angle to impinge on
the catalyst bed. Inserted at the top end of the fuel
grain, a consumable catalyst bed (CCB) ignition
system previously invented at Purdue causes
hydrogen peroxide to decompose upon contact,
increasing temperature and initiating combustion of
the H2O2/HTPB propellant combination.
Table 3. Full-Scale Engine Parameters
Chamber Pressure
440
[psi]
Thrust
175
[lbf]
Oxidizer Mass Flow
0.68
[lbm/s]
Rate
Initial O/F ratio
5.25
Predicted average c*
4900
[ft/s]
Fuel Grain Outer
3.5
[in]
Port Diameter
Fuel Grain Length
10
[in]

A series of hot fire tests were performed in order to

verify the structural integrity of the new engine, to
verify thermal integrity of injector face, postcombustion chamber and nozzle, as well as to ensure
that no leakage was taking place past the primary and
secondary seals. The tests also aimed to obtain
regression rate and combustion performance data,
and to verify/calibrate the hybrid rocket motor
internal ballistics code. A total of three hot fire tests
successfully took place, for burn durations of 3.0, 3.5
and 6.5 seconds. No problems were encountered with
the structure, and upon close examination of the butt
and o-ring seals, no sign of leaks, material
degradation or charring was observed. There was
minimal ablation of the carbon-filled EPDM
insulation on the injector face. However, on the third
hot fire test, after a cumulative time of 13 seconds,
chipping of the discontinuous silica phenolic sheets
was observed at the nozzle throat. Fig. 10 shows a
picture of the full-scale engine hot-fire testing.
The thrust and chamber pressure measurements for
the three hot fire tests (shown in Fig. A.1 of the
appendix) were in close agreement to the predicted
values. The actual regression rates were higher than

5 of 15
4th Responsive Space Conference 2006

predicted, showing a 63% increase over the subscale

engine tests. The higher than expected regression
rates are attributed to air bubbles formed during
casting of the HTPB fuel grain, which cause uneven
burning and an increase in the burn surface area. For
this series of tests, the average specific impulse was
218 seconds (moderately over-expanded sea-level
thrust).
Injector Assembly

Combustion Chamber
Top Cap

Figure 8. Injector end seal and assembly detail.

Consumable
Catalyst Bed

Aluminum
Motor Casing

HTPB Fuel
Grain

Figure 9. Nozzle end seal and assembly detail.

Aft Mixing
Section
Paper Phenolic
liner
Silica Phenolic
Nozzle
Viton O-ring
Nozzle
Retaining Ring

Figure 7. Full-scale, 170 lbf thrust, flight-weight

engine assembly drawing.

Figure 10. Picture of flight-weight, 170 lbf thrust

engine hot fire test.

6 of 15
4th Responsive Space Conference 2006

RECOVERY SUB-SYSTEM
The incremental development of the technology
demonstration sounding rocket relies heavily on
multiple launch and successful recovery of the flight
hardware. This calls for the development of a very
robust and reliable parachute recovery sub-system.
Following a recovery system trade study, the final
design calls for a dual deployment system, with
drogue parachute deployment at apogee, and primary
parachute deployment at 1,200 ft altitude. System
redundancy is achieved by making use of two
completely independent recovery modules for
parachute ejection. Each module contains a lithiumion battery, an R-DAS flight computer and four
pyrotechnic ejection charges (2 per parachute). The
recovery sub-system will be tested on a separate
flight prior to being used on the demonstrator vehicle.
Fig. 11 shows a layout of the recovery sub-system.

Figure 11. Recovery sub-system layout.

AVIONICS, GUIDANCE, CONTROL

Guidance and control will be implemented on followon flights of the technology demonstration vehicle,
following flight verification of the recovery,
propulsion and structures sub-systems. A liquid
injection thrust vector control system (LITVC) with
associated guidance algorithms, software and
hardware is currently being developed.
GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
The ground support equipment (GSE) is used for
remote loading and draining of hydrogen peroxide to
and from the launch vehicle. The system consists of
5, solenoid valves, 2 pressure regulators, 4
pressure transducers, 2 thermocouples, 4 check
valves and associated plumbing lines. Regulated
nitrogen pressure is used to pressurize a hydrogen
peroxide storage tank to the desired ullage pressure
of 600 psia MEOP in order to feed liquid oxidizer
through a series of solenoid valves into the launch
vehicle oxidizer tank. The nitrogen gas continues to
flow until all pressures in the system reach
equilibrium. The oxidizer fill line is remotely
disengaged from the vehicle by a remotely actuated
quick-disconnect valve. To ensure safe launch
operations, the oxidizer tank pressure and

temperature are constantly monitored to verify that

the hydrogen peroxide is not undergoing unexpected
decomposition. Launch is initiated by opening an onboard electrically actuated solenoid valve which
allows hydrogen peroxide to flow into the main
engine where ignition takes place upon contact with
the consumable catalyst bed (CCB).
In the event of an abort, the GSE has the capability of
remotely draining the hydrogen peroxide from the
launch vehicle into a specially designed dump tank
on the ground, by simply shutting off the
pressurization source, and opening a dump valve. In
the event where an abort is called after the quick
disconnect has been disengaged, depressurization of
the vehicle occurs by opening a remotely actuated
solenoid vent valve on the tank. To ensure safety in
launch operations, all circuits of the GSE and launch
vehicle are designed to be fail-safe. In the event of an
unexpected power outage, all solenoid valves return
to their normal positions (normally open or closed) to
allow venting of the tanks and automatic draining of
the oxidizer from the launch vehicle directly into the
dump tank. Fig. A.1 in the appendix shows a
plumbing and instrumentation diagram for the GSE
system. Valve control and monitoring of pressures
and temperatures on the GSE/launch vehicle system
is controlled by Labview software.

OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL SMALL

LAUNCH VEHICLE DESIGN
The second phase of the program involves the design
and flight of a university built small satellite launch
vehicle capable of delivering a 10 lb mass payload to
Low Earth Orbit. Technologies developed and proven
in flight under the first phase of the program will be
implemented in the design of the orbital vehicle.
Performance data from flights of the demonstrator
vehicle will provide baseline numbers from which to
begin the design. The following pages present a
conceptual design based on test data obtained to date.

7 of 15
4th Responsive Space Conference 2006

DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
The design drivers for launch vehicle development
depend on the needs and resources of the particular
organization. Profit is a typical design driver for
commercial space organizations, research and
development is a typical design driver for
government organizations, and defense and security
applications are for military organizations. These
design drivers are prevalent and visible in all aspects
of the rocket and launch infrastructure design, and the
same is true for a university organization.
The Design Philosophy of a university built launch
vehicle is mainly influenced by the needs, resources
and capabilities of the university organization, its
students and its faculty. The primary driver for a
university is to provide its student body with the
education, and this project will provide practical
engineering experience to design, build, test and fly a
launch vehicle into Earth orbit. Through this design
process, university students and faculty will obtain
the opportunity to conduct research, and to test
innovative design concepts in multiple sub-orbital
and orbital flights. These design drivers lead to the
necessity of orienting the program for multiple design
and flight test cycles, which will lead to increased
student exposure.
In addition to student education and exposure,
funding for the effort will most likely come from
corporate sponsors which are inclined to invest in a
program with clear, high visibility milestones, such
as those provided by test launches. Moreover, the
constraint of working with relatively small groups of
students inhibits the ability of a parallel, rather than
series style development program, due to a much
larger number of students required to complete a
parallel vehicle design effort. Due to these factors an
in-series vehicle development program is proposed.
Using this philosophy, the vehicle will be designed in
three separate stages, each capable of being
manufactured and tested individually. The 3rd stage of
a 3-stage vehicle will be designed, built and tested
first. Upon flight verification of the 3rd stage, the 2nd
stage of the launch vehicle will be built and
assembled. In the same fashion, following successful
flight verification of stage 2, the 1st stage will be
manufactured, assembled and flown. Serial
manufacturing, integration, testing and launch of
each stage individually will help work out the kinks
in the sub-systems without putting the fully
integrated launch vehicle at risk. Moreover, smaller
scale projects within the framework of a larger
program will allow students to participate in a project

from its inception to its completion, while still being

students. The main challenge with a serial
development approach is that of maintaining design
heritage and institutional knowledge. When one
generation (class) of designers has graduated the next
needs to be able to pick up where the previous one
left off, which requires a dedicated management team
and extensive documentation.
The conceptual design calls for 98% H2O2/HTPB
hybrid propulsion and LITVC vector control on the
1st and 2nd stages. The 3rd stage uses solid propulsion
with spin-stabilization to boost the payload into a low
Earth orbit. As mentioned earlier, the plan is to test
each of the individual stages as ground launched suborbital rockets. The 1st stage will not require much
modification for sub-orbital testing since it is
designed with active guidance, is mostly re-usable
and incorporates a parachute recovery sub-system.
For sub-orbital testing, the 2nd and 3rd stages will
need to be modified with the addition of a parachute
recovery module and a nozzle designed for sea-level
operation. Due to its lack of active guidance, the 3rd
stage would require a thrust-to-weight ratio of 4 to be
launched from the ground using temporary,
additional fin stabilization. Therefore, the 3rd stage
will have a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than what is
typically for the final stage of a launch vehicle. In
addition, the test launch of the individual stages will
provide available payload mass and microgravity
time for universities to conduct student built microgravity experiments.
A low propellant mass fraction is a major constraint
on a university built launch vehicle. When based
solely on performance a high propellant mass fraction
is clearly preferable, however when one considers the
primary mission drivers, such as those of educating
students through practical design experience, it
becomes clear that high propellant mass fractions are
not feasible. The relative inexperience and limited
time commitment of student designers, leads to the
necessity of adding higher than normal factors of
safety. The manufacturability of parts by in-house or
relatively inexpensive local machine shops as
compared to aerospace grade certifiable machine
shops leads to higher factors of safety as well.
Furthermore, less infrastructure is required to build a
launch vehicle with a relatively higher safety factor,
and a lower propellant mass fraction. Design with
lower propellant mass fractions will lead to a more
accessible design, lower development cost, at the
expense of vehicle performance (lower payload mass
to orbit).

8 of 15
4th Responsive Space Conference 2006

CODE DEVOLOPMENT
Computer code was developed to aid in the
conceptual design of a small satellite launch vehicle.
The basic scheme involves solving the ideal rocket
equation for a given mission V, assuming a
propellant mass fraction. The first part of the
simulation runs an engine internal ballistics code in
conjunction with a vehicle trajectory code to estimate
V losses due to gravity and drag, subsequently
updating the required mission V. The inert masses
are tabulated using both calculated and historical
mass estimates, from design handbooks and
experience from the demonstrator vehicle,
subsequently updating the assumed propellant mass
fraction. The vehicle simulation is iterated until it
converges on a design solution.
IDEAL ROCKET PERFORMANCE
The premise of this code is the ideal rocket equation
in the following form.
m
V = Isp * g ln f
mi
m
MR = f
mi

m prop

( MR 1)
= f prop * m pl *
1 MR * (1 f prop )

Where, MR is mass ratio, mf is final mass, mi is

initial mass, and fprop is propellant mass fraction. The
code receives input of payload mass (mpl), inert mass
fractions and total V, and outputs propellant mass,
inert masses and V for each stage. Initially the
upper stage values are calculated, and the total upper
stage is used as the payload mass for the lower stage,
and similarly the 2nd and 3rd stages total mass is used
as the first stage payload mass. For vehicle
optimization the code runs a wide range of cases and
finds the minimum mass solution for the V
breakdown.

TRAJECTORY
The trajectory code calculates the vehicle trajectory
based on engine performance input from the internal
ballistic code and with estimates of vehicle mass and
geometry from the ideal rocket performance code. An
equations of motion force balance is performed
which calculates acceleration using a two
dimensional flat Earth model and on gravity, thrust
and drag models. Thrust is calculated using output
from the internal ballistics code, and the ambient
pressure at each altitude using the 1962 U.S.
Standard Atmosphere model. Drag is calculated using

the dynamic pressure calculated from density input

from the Standard Atmosphere as well as velocity
and drag coefficient (Cd) values, based on a subsonic
compressible aerodynamics model. The model is than
modified for transonic flow using Prandtl-Glauert,
and as a conservative assumption, is assumed to be
0.4 for supersonic conditions.
The gravity force is assumed to be constant (32.2
ft/s2) throughout the entire flight. The code allows
for thrust vectoring at any given angle, but for this
analysis the engine is simply commanded to fly at a
constant flight path angle, and then to perform a
gravity turn. The code uses a finite difference model
whereby the position, velocity, and acceleration of
the vehicle are calculated based upon input of force
balance, position, and velocity from the previous time
step. The code is run past engine burnout, allowing
the vehicle to coast to apogee. Based upon the
altitude and velocity achieved at apogee, a V
required to circularize the orbit is calculated, which is
then iterated in conjunction with the ideal rocket
performance code to converge upon a design.

INERT MASS
Using historical trends, an inert mass break down for
the two hybrid rocket stages is calculated and
compared to the allocated inert mass for each stage.
The inert mass code uses historical values based on
SPAD as well as development data from the
demonstrator vehicle (phase 1). The inert masses are
broken down into 5 sub-sections, including propellant
tank mass, ullage mass, pressurant mass, structural
mass, and extraneous mass such as valves, plumbing
and wiring. The propellant tank mass is calculated
using the pressure vessel performance-factor
approach, where the tank mass factor tank is taken
from historical values. The tank mass factor tank is
shown in Eq, 2, where Vtank is tank volume, and Pb is
burst pressure. The helium pressurant mass is
calculated based on isentropic expansion of the
pressurent into the oxidizer tank. Pressurant tank
mass is calculated in a manner similar to the
propellant tank mass. Based on historical data, 10%
of the inert mass was assumed for structural mounts,
airframe, bolts etc. In addition, valves and other
components were estimated as a further 10-15% of
the inert mass. Using the calculated inert mass, the
propellant mass fraction can be updated for further
iteration with the ideal rocket performance code.

9 of 15
4th Responsive Space Conference 2006

mtank =

pbVtank

tank g 0

(2)

LAUNCH VEHICLE MASS BREAKDOWN

The launch vehicle mass breakdown was calculated
using the codes and procedures described in the
previous section. The design was constrained to
placing a 10 lb payload at a minimum altitude of 93
miles, assuming a maximum 1st stage thrust of 10,000
lbf, based on the testing capabilities of the High
Pressure Laboratory at Purdue University. Given the
above constraints, as well as Isp and engine
performance data from preliminary phase 1 hot fire
testing, the code found the minimum propellant mass
fraction that would achieve mission objectives. A
minimum propellant mass fraction of 77% was
converged upon. Table 4 presents the initial vehicle
mass breakdown for each stage.
The vehicle gross lift-off weight (GLOW) is equal to
6,275 lb, making use of 680 lb of HTPB fuel, and
4,082 lb (350 gallons) of 98% concentration
hydrogen peroxide oxidizer. The total length of the
vehicle equals 27.7 ft with a base diameter of 3.0 ft.
Fig. 12 shows the calculated dimensions for each
stage, and approx. size of major components. The
propellant mass fraction will be 77% which is
considerably lower than the 85% (approximate
average) mass fraction of modern day launch
vehicles. As mentioned earlier, a low propellant mass
fraction is desirable due to design limitations and
construction techniques available to a university
organization. The composite oxidizer and pressurant
tank masses, thrust vector control hardware mass, and
avionics system masses were estimated using
historical trends.
3rd STAGE
The serial design philosophy states that our first
vehicle design will be the 3rd stage. The third stage
has a low total mass and for this reason, solid
propulsion will be able to achieve the inert mass
fraction limitation due to its lack of valves, plumbing
and other components. Based on historical trends, an
Isp of 290 sec was assumed for the third stage solid
motor, using an nozzle with 100:1 expansion ratio.
The third stage motor will be ignited at the desired
orbital altitude, providing the delta-V required to
achieve orbital velocity. Four, cold gas roll thrusters
on the 2nd stage spin the vehicle following 2nd stage
burn-out. Following stage separation, the 3rd stage is

spin-stabilized and thus requires no active guidance.

A propellant mass fraction of 0.77 was assumed for
the 3rd stage. An inert mass of 18.7 lb includes the
SRM casing, avionics, payload mount and the
satellite release mechanism. The solid propellant
rocket motor is designed to produce an average thrust
of 370 lbf, for total burn duration of 49 seconds.
2nd STAGE
A 98% H2O2/HTPB hybrid engine is used as primary
propulsion for the 2nd stage of the launch vehicle.
Data from the demonstrator vehicle engine was used
as an initial design point, with a reduced chamber
pressure of 200 psi and increased hydrogen peroxide
concentration from 90% to 98%. An Ispv of 320 sec is
estimated from the NASA thermal equilibrium
program, and a 95% c* efficiency based on sub-scale
and full-scale demonstrator vehicle engine tests. The
hybrid engine is designed to produce an average
thrust of 1,230 lbf, for total burn duration of 157
seconds. The second stage has a total mass of 879 lb,
with 605.9 lb of propellant and 181 lb of inert mass.
Table 5 shows a further inert mass breakdown of the
2nd stage.
The mass of the pressurant and oxidizer tank were
both estimated by assuming a conservative pressure
vessel performance factor of 21,300 ft, only
moderately better than large DOT composite overwrapped pressure vessels. The structural performance
of the pressure vessel can be improved given the
availability of resources and appropriate corporate
sponsorship. The engine mass was estimated from the
demonstrator vehicle engine thrust-to-weight ratio of
31.3. This value can be improved given the larger
size of the vehicle. The propellant ullage mass was
assumed to equal 2.5% of the stage propellant mass
based on Huzel and Huang design guidelines.
Miscellaneous mass include valves, plumbing, thrust
vector control, wiring, etc. is assumed to equal 15%
of the inert mass. To allow for unforeseen increase in
the mass of the 2nd stage, a weight growth margin of
53.8 lb was allocated.

Table 4. Overall Vehicle Mass Break Down, lbs

Mtot stg1 Mprop stg1 Mi stg1 Mtot stg2 Mprop stg2 Mi stg2 Mtot stg3 Mprop stg3 Mi stg3 Mpayload M GLOW
4156
1241 786.9
605.9
180.7 81.2
62.5
18.7
10.0 6275.1
5397
86%
77%
23% 12.5%
77%
23% 1.3%
77%
23% 0.16%
GLOW STG1 STG1 GLOW STG2 STG2 GLOW STG3 STG3 GLOW
10 of 15
4th Responsive Space Conference 2006

Table 5. Stage 2 inert mass breakdown, lbs.

Ullage Mass, lbm
15.1
8.4%
Oxidizer Tank mass, lbm
16.2
9%
Engine Mass, lbm
28.1
15.6%
Pressurant Mass, lbm
5.5
3%
Pressurant tank, lbm
16.8
9.3%
Structural Mass, lbm
18.1
10%
Miscellaneous mass, lbm 27.1
15%
Mass Growth, lbm
53.8
29.7%
Stage 2 Total Mass, lbm
100%
180.7
1st STAGE
The 1st stage design is similar to that of the 2nd stage,
but on a larger scale. The H2O2/HTPB hybrid engine
will operate at a chamber pressure of 600 psia to
improve specific impulse to an average of 260 sec
over the entire flight envelope of the 1st stage. The
engine is designed to produce 8,790 lbf of thrust for
total burn duration of 123 seconds, well within the
capabilities of the rocket test facilities at Purdue
University. Miscellaneous mass accounts for 10% of
the inert mass due to the larger size of the 1st stage,
which effectively reduces the fraction of vehicle mass
allotted to valves and other small components. The
helium pressurant tank is pressurized to 9,000 psia
for the regulated pressure fed system. Table 6
presents the inert mass breakdown of the 1st stage.
Fig. A.3 in the appendix shows plots of altitude,
velocity and thrust versus time for the 1st stage. The
use of a proprietary altitude compensation nozzle is
being considered in the conceptual design trade
studies in order to boost specific impulse during
ascent through the atmosphere. Finally, to further
increase Isp, alternative fuels to HTPB are being
investigated such as DCPD.
Table 6: Stage 1 inert mass breakdown, lbs.
Ullage Mass, lbm
103.9
8.37%
Oxidizer Tank mass, lbm 201.6
16.2%
Engine Mass, lbm
281.1
22.6%
Pressurant Mass, lbm
69.7
5.6%
Pressurant tank, lbm
230.7
18.6%
Structural Mass, lbm
124.1
10%
Miscellaneous mass, lbm 124.1
10%
Mass Growth, lbm
105.9
8.5%
Stage 3Total Mass, lbm
100%
1241

Figure 12. Overall layout of small satellite launch

vehicle.

11 of 15
4th Responsive Space Conference 2006

CONCLUSIONS
The design drivers for launch vehicle development
depend on the needs and resources of the particular
organization. The primary driver for a university is to
provide its student body with the education, and the
practical engineering experience to design, build, test
and fly a launch vehicle into low Earth orbit.
Through this design process, university students and
faculty will obtain the opportunity to conduct
research, and to test innovative design concepts in
multiple sub-orbital and orbital flights. A sounding
rocket demonstrator is being designed and tested at
Purdue, to serve as a test-bed for flight testing
technologies critical to the development of a small
satellite launch vehicle. The complexity of the subsystems launched will increase with each subsequent
flight. In-sequence testing will allow the designers to
validate and fine-tune the subsystems before adding
more features, cost and complexity to the
demonstrator vehicle. By not having to fly all the
vehicle subsystems on the inaugural flight, it is
believed that a step-by-step flight validation approach
will help control the design process, while
concurrently reducing development cost and risk.
The second phase of the program involves the design
of an orbital vehicle by making use of technologies
demonstrated during the first phase of the program. A
serial development approach will be implemented
whereby the third (final) stage of the vehicle will be
validated in flight before the second stage is built.
Consequently the 1st stage will be built after
successful flight validation of the third and second
stages. As mentioned earlier this incremental
approach will serve to control the design, cost and
risk associated with new launch vehicle development.
To reduce costs associated with structural design,
analysis and manufacturing, a three stage launch
vehicle with a low propellant mass fraction (77%)
would be designed and manufactured. Hybrid
propulsion would be used due to its relative
simplicity over liquid-bi-propellant systems. In
addition,
the
98%
H2O2/HTPB propellant
combination offers high density Isp as well as nontoxic and non-cryogenic properties which leads to
increased safety and a reduction in operation costs. A
small composite solid propellant third stage would
provide the final delta-V at the desired orbital altitude
of 93 miles. Finally, a three stage launch vehicle with
a GLOW of 6,275 lb powered by an 8,790 lbf thrust
first stage engine would satisfy the mission design
requirements.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the members of
the Purdue University Hybrid Sounding Rocket team,
especially Jeremy Corpening and Michael Grant, as
well as Scott Meyer for their help and support. We
would also like to acknowledge the sponsors to the
Hybrid Rocket project and thank them for their
support: ATK Thiokol, SpaceX, Aerojet, Purdue
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and Rocky
Mountain Wireline Service.

REFERENCES
1

Gordon, S., McBride, B, Computer Program for

Calculation
of
Complex
Chemical
Equilibrium
Compositions, Rocket Performance, Incident and Reflected
Shocks, and Chapman-Jouguet Detonations, NASA SP273, 1971.

Ben-Yakar, Adela; Gany, Alon. Hybrid Engine Design

and Analysis. Israel Institute of Technology; Haifa, Israel.
AIAA 1993.
3

Wernimont E. J., Heister S. D., Combustion Experiments

in Hydrogen Peroxide/Polyethylene Hybrid Rocket with
Catalytic Ignition, Journal of Propulsion and Power,
Vol.16, No. 2, 2000, pp 318-326.

4
Sutton, G., Biblarz, O., Rocket Propulsion Elements and
Design, 7th ed, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2001, pp
64.
5

Wernimont, E. J., Meyer, S. E., and Ventura, M. C., A

Hybrid Motor System with a Consumable Catalytic Bed, A
Composition of the Catalytic Bed and A Method of Use,
U.S. Patent Application 08/623,937,Filed March1996.

6
Humble, R., Henry, G., Larson, W., Space Propulsion
Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1995, pg
372.
7

Estey, P.N, Whittinghill, G.R., Hybrid rocket motor

propellant selection alternatives, 28th Joint Propulsion
Conference and Exhibit, 1992, AIAA-1992-3592.
8

Larson, W., Wetrz, J, Space Mission Analysis and Design,

Microcosm Press, 1999
9

Huzel, D., Huang, D., Modern Engineering for Design of

Liquid-Propellant Rocket Engines, AIAA, 1992

12 of 15
4th Responsive Space Conference 2006

APPENDIX

Table A.1. Sounding rocket mass breakdown, lbs

Recovery Sub-system (lb):
drogue chute
primary parachute
primary/drogue shock cords
drogue & main plunger
fasteners - recovery system
primary/drogue pyro squibs
flight computer #1 and #2
additional electronics
lithium ion battery #1 and #2
electrical wiring
avionics housing structure
Recovery Sub-system Total:
Structure Sub-system (lb):
nose cone
fuselage aero-structure
Fins
oxidizer tank
pressure relief valve
contingency vent valve
pressure transducer
temperature thermocouple
ox tank fittings (vent section)
quick disconnect and fittings
fasteners - ox tank/fuselage
TCA mount
Bulkhead
recovery module aero-structure
Lithium battery pack
Structure Sub-system Total:
Propulsion Sub-system (lb):
main valve
thrust chamber feed lines
thrust chamber assembly
fasteners - thrust chamber
Propulsion Sub-system Total:
VEHICLE DRY MASS (lb):
OXIDIZER MASS (lb):
VEHICLE GLOW (lb):

0.58
0.61
1.0
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.7
5.2
1.5
6.0
0.39
10.75
0.4
0.38
0.35
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.15
0.15
3.5
0.5
25.2
2.0
0.3
11.4
0.1
13.8
44.2
11.5
55.7

13 of 15
4th Responsive Space Conference 2006

Figure A.1. Thrust and chamber pressure measurements from flight-weight, 170 lbf thrust engine hot fire
tests.

Figure A.2. Ground support equipment plumbing and instrumentation diagram.

14 of 15
4th Responsive Space Conference 2006

Altitude [ft]

a) Altitude vs. Time

x 10

2
1
0

20

40

60
80
Time [sec]

100

120

140

100

120

140

100

120

140

b) Velocity vs. Time

Velocity [ft/s]

6000
4000
2000
0

20

40

60
80
Time [sec]

c) Thrust vs. Time

Thrust [lbf]

9500

9000

8500

20

40

60
80
Time [sec]

Figure A.3. Altitude, velocity and thrust versus time for small satellite vehicle 1st stage.

15 of 15
4th Responsive Space Conference 2006