Vapor Pressurization (VaPak) Systems

History, Concepts, and Applications

Ralph Ewig, PhD1
Holder Consulting Group, Renton, WA 98059, USA

This paper discusses the concept of vapor pressurization (VaPak) and it’s applications to
aerospace systems. The history of VaPak technology development is summarized, and a brief
introduction is given to the physical process underlying the VaPak technology. The unique
promises of VaPak technology (low-complexity, low-cost, low-weight) are discussed, together
with some of the challenges associated with VaPak implementation (handling of saturated
fluids, pressure curve shaping, etc.). VaPak technology holds great promise for enabling
both launch systems and in-space systems. Its unique abilities of long-term propellant stor-
age with high reliability, and zero-g use without settling mechanisms are enablers to both
conventional and ISRU based exploration architectures.

Nomenclature
CH4 = Methane
C3H8 = Propane
DARPA = Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
EMF = Expended Mass Fraction
EMF/P = Fundamental EMF vs. Pressure curve
LOX = Liquid Oxygen
N2O = Di-nitrogen monoxide (nitrous)
ISP = Specific Impulse
ISRU = In Situ Resource Utilization
OF = Oxidizer to Fuel ratio
ORS = Operationally Responsive Spacelift
RLV = Reusable Launch Vehicle
SBIR = Small Business Innovative Research
VaPak = Vapor Pressurization

I. Introduction
In the early 1960s Aerojet Corporation investigated the concept of using saturated fluids as a means to pressurize
rocket propellant tanks. This approach was called Vapor Pressurization or VaPak. Even then Aerojet understood the
need for simple and highly reliable liquid rocket propulsion, especially in those applications where solid rocket solu-
tions were used with the associated performance limitations. The greatest contributor to the complexity of a liquid
propellant rocket system is the pressurization and propellant feed system. Two types of liquid propellant feed sys-
tems are generally in use, pressure-fed systems and pump-fed systems.
Pump-fed systems have the best performance and lowest weight for high chamber pressure applications. The use
of a pump to raise pressure prior to injection into the combustion chamber allows for storing the propellant at pres-
sure much below the chamber pressure. Unfortunately, the system with the greatest weight advantage (turbo pumps)
is also the most complex, with the associated reliability concerns and cost disadvantages.
The less complex pressure-fed systems require heavier tanks (to withstand greater pressures) as pressure drops
rapidly from the initial loading conditions, thus adding considerable weight to the system. This is especially true for
ground launched applications, where higher chamber pressures are needed to offset the ambient atmospheric pres-
sure and maintain good engine performance. When cold compressed gas is used for tank pressurization, the weight
of the pressurization system can be as high as 40% of the overall propulsion system allocation. The use of hot gases,
or gas generators burning liquid or solid fuel can reduce this fraction to 25% or less, but raises system complexity.

1
All rights reserved; express permission given to redistribute in unaltered form ([email protected]).

Holder Consulting Group 1 4/14/2009

A. VaPak Concept
The VaPak concept developed by Aerojet in 1959 combines the low-
complexity advantages of a pressure-fed system, with the performance advantages
(low tank weight, improved chamber pressures) of a pump-fed system. While Va- Vapor
Pak performance is handicapped for ground launch applications, the performance
of in-space vehicles (upper stages, spacecraft, etc.) can be as good as that of a so-
phisticated pump-fed system.
VaPak pressurization utilizes the internal energy of a saturated liquid stored in
a closed container to perform the work required to expel that liquid from the con-
tainer. Initially, the liquid temperature is adjusted so that the vapor pressure equals
Liquid
the desired tank pressure. As propellant is drained and the pressure drops, the re-
maining liquid boils, and the released gas retains the tank at near constant pres-
sure. Roughly 70% of the initial tank pressure remains at the point of liquid deple-
tion. The rate at which the tank pressure decreases is a function of the thermody-
namic properties of the selected propellant. Selection of propellant species and
initial conditions allow the designer to tune the system for the desired application

B. Development History Figure 1: VaPak uses the

Aerojet initiated the development of vapor pressurization in 1959. Through internal energy of the fluid
1964 a large number of tests were conducted that allowed for the derivation and to pressurize the tank.
validation of the fundamental VaPak physicsi,ii. These tests included 38 cold-flow
expulsion tests, using 8 different propellant species, 120 engine test firings using a bi-propellant rocket engine with
up 6,000 lbf of thrust, and 14 simulated zero-g box-motor firings.
In 1983 the Boeing Company conducted a number of tests to investigate the storability of saturated propellants.iii
These tests were aimed at better understanding the transient behavior of saturated propellants when liquid is first
removed from the tank, and the relationship of that behavior to the rate at which the liquid is removed. It was found
that vent rates of 0.1 to 0.4 ullage volumes per second were sufficient to initiate the VaPak process (flash boiling) in
the system.
In 2000 the Dunn Engineering company in conjunction with the University of British Columbia (Canada) pub-
lished a report on self-pressurized bipropellant liquid rocketsiv. It used hydrogen peroxide as the oxidizer, and a vari-
ety of hydrocarbons as the fuel, both pressurized with the VaPak approach. In addition to the application of VaPak
to rocket propulsion, the report also identified the advantages of VaPak for in space (zero-g) propellant transfers.
The authors made use of flexible bladders to separate a VaPak and a conventional fluid inside a common pressure
vessel. Test data showed a close adherence to the established VaPak physics model, with the exception of a transient
pressure drop at system startup (the focus of the previously mentioned Boeing work).
In 2004 Scaled Composites was the first company to combine
the concepts of air-launching (launching at altitude) and VaPak
fed propulsion on the hybrid rocket engine of SpaceShipOne. The
concept used a SpaceDev propellant grain fuel together with Va-
Pak pressurized liquid nitrous oxide (N2O) as the oxidizer. The
engine developed a chamber pressure of 37 atm, expanded
through a 25:1 nozzle. Liquid nitrous oxide (N2O / dinitrogen
monoxide / 'laughing gas') was the oxidizer of choice for the ap-
plication because it was storable, and self-pressurizing to 48 at-
mospheres at 17 deg C. v
In 2006 Truax Engineering (founded by Captain Robert Truax,
former Aerojet engineer) was awarded a NASA SBIR for the de-
velopment of their low-cost Excalibur launch vehicle concept.
The work included additional expulsion testing (cold flow) of Figure 2: SpaceShipOne used a hybrid rocket
saturated propellants. The test data further validated the VaPak engine with VaPak pressurized N2O oxidizer.
physics models originally developed at Aerojet.vi

Holder Consulting Group 2 4/14/2009

 In 2006 through 2008 AirLaunch LLC
conducted extensive ground testing of a
VaPak propulsion system in conjunction
with a low-cost pintle rocket engine as part
of the DARPA/USAF funded Falcon Small
Launch Vehicle Program.vii Over 80 test
firings were executed using propane and
liquid oxygen as the propellants, both pres-
surized using VaPak. The engine was rated
for 20,000 lbf and test durations were as
long as 200 sec. The same engine was also
fired using methane and liquid oxygen,
Figure 3: Test firing of the AirLaunch water-cooled LOX/C3H8 demonstrating the versatility of the low-
VaPak engine at the Mojave Spaceport test facilities. complexity VaPak approach.

II. Concept
This section gives a brief introduction to the physical process underlying the VaPak technology, and a discussion
of the associated benefits and challenges in applying VaPak to operational systems.

C. Physics
Figure 4 illustrates the principals driving the vapor pressurization process. This is the same thermo-physical
process that maintains pressure as material is expelled in butane cigarette lighters and common propane tanks used
on BBQ grills. VaPak systems require no pumps and feature simplicity with the associated benefits of low cost and
reduced number of failure modes.
The system is initially in equilib-
rium with both the liquid and the
vapor inside the tank at the same
pressure. As liquid is removed, the
pressure in the vapor phase drops
and causes the liquid to flash-boil.
The gas released by the boiling
process then repressurizes the vapor
phase, until both liquid and vapor
phases exist again at the same pres-
sure (slightly below the initial start-
ing pressure).
Using VaPak, either saturated
vapor or saturated liquid can be
drawn from the tank. If liquid is
drawn from the tank, only a fraction
of the energy stored in the liquid is
used to maintain pressure. The pres- Figure 4: Vapor Pressurization (VaPak) process.
sure at liquid exhaustion is usually 50-70% of the starting pressure, depending on the thermo-physical characteristics
of the fluid. If the fluid is drawn from the tank as saturated vapor, the fluid uses a greater quantity of the energy
stored in the liquid to create the replacement vapor. The result is a more rapid and complete pressure drop.
A typical VaPak pressure discharge curve is shown in Figure 5. The plot shows tank pressure normalized by its
starting value against the Expended Mass Fraction (EMF). A tank completely full of liquid has an EMF=0, whereas
a tank that is completely evacuated of both liquid and vapor has an EMF=1. The figure shows the pressure discharge
curve for a tank containing saturated oxygen with an initial pressure of 200 psi. Up to 96% of the mass contained in
the tank can be drawn as a liquid, with pressure dropping to only 72% from its starting value. At that point, only
vapor remains in the tank (gaseous oxygen) and the pressure drops rapidly as the remaining propellant is expelled.

Holder Consulting Group 3 4/14/2009

 The use of EMF to characterize the Va-
Pak pressure curve is attributed to the deriva- 1
tion of the VaPak behavior as pioneered by
0.9
Aerojet. In the derivation, the system behav-
ior is captured by use of an enthalpy balance. 0.8
The underlying assumption is that no energy 72%
is added to or lost from the system during 0.7
operation. In actual engineering applications
this is not generally true, as heat is transferred 0.6
Liquid Expulsion (VaPak) Mode
across tank walls and work expended to push

P/P 0
0.5
fluids through flow restrictions etc. Holder
Consulting Group (HCG) has developed so- 0.4
phisticated modeling techniques to account Gas Expulsion (Vapor) Mode
for these types of non-ideal behavior. An- 0.3
other simplification of the ideal model is the
0.2
absence of the startup transience; this will
cause a momentary drop of pressure below O2 VaPak Curve @ 200 psi
0.1
the predicted value, followed by a recovery 96%
after a number of seconds. The exact duration 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
and magnitude of this startup transient de- EMF
pends on the specifics of the system (tank
geometry, surface roughness, etc) and the Figure 5: VaPak EMF vs. pressure curve for oxygen.
initial flow rate as the process is started.

D. VaPak Features
The key advantage of a VaPak system is its ability to maintain propellant pressure at much higher levels than a
traditional pressure-fed blow-down system, yet without the need for any kind of turbo-pump machinery or separate
gas pressurization system. The low complexity (low parts count) of the system enables lower cost, lower weight, and
improved system reliability. From a performance standpoint, VaPak systems offer the improved ISP of liquid pro-
pellant engines (when compared to solids). Compared to a traditional pressure-fed system, the reduced pressure drop
throughout the burn enables lower initial storage pressure for a given target chamber pressure, which in turn makes
it possible to use lighter tanks.
Another unique advantage of the VaPak system is the fact that the pressurization gas is also propellant. If the
paired engine is capable of combusting both liquid and gaseous propellants (generally true since all propellants are
vaporized as they pass through the injector into the combustion chamber), VaPak systems require no propellant set-
tling in zero-g application. This is of key importance for upper stages that perform multiple burns, but also for pro-
pellant transfer in a zero-g environment from a depot to a vehicle or vice versa. Lastly, VaPak has particular syner-
gism with air-launched rockets, where the reduced environmental pressure at ignition (high altitude drop) reduces
the tank pressure requirement (=weight), and no settling is required if the engine is to be ignited after separation of
the rocket from the carrier aircraft (especially important for safety in piloted aircraft).
Since the physics underlying the VaPak process are consistent across a wide variety or propellant species (both
elements and compounds), it is easily adapted to In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) mission architectures. For ex-
ample, Mars sample return missions have been proposed where methane and oxygen are collected on Mars over
several months to power the return flight. Both of these propellants are very suitable for VaPak applications, and the
inherent reliability of the VaPak process (physics always work) is of great benefit to the problem of long duration
storage.

E. VaPak Challenges
There are a number of unique challenges associated with the realization of VaPak’s potential in any operational
system. Foremost is the handling of propellants in a saturated state. Propellant tanks must be conditioned to accurate
and uniform initial conditions to achieve the desired VaPak EMF/P discharge curve. This becomes increasingly dif-
ficult as the system size increases. Saturated liquids are also sensitive to any type of pressure drop, which will cause
immediate flash-boiling. While this can be an advantage in the process of propellant mixing inside the combustion
chamber, it becomes a concern in the remainder of the propellant feed system. Narrow diameter pipes, sharp bends,
or obstructions from sensor equipment (e.g. mass-flow meters) all cause drops in fluid pressure and a portion of the

Holder Consulting Group 4 4/14/2009

propellant will transition to gas phase, this results in two-phase flow (liquid and vapor) which is difficult to analyze,
predict, and manage.
Coordinating the operation of two separate VaPak systems in a bi-propellant rocket raises additional challenges.
VaPak systems are self-correcting regarding their end state, but not in regards to the path they take to get to that
state. This implies that while both propellants will be depleted near simultaneously, maintaining an optimal OF ratio
throughout the burn is not guaranteed. Another challenge in the use of bi-propellant VaPak systems is the “transi-
tion-gap”. In a VaPak system, liquid is expelled from the tank until only saturated gas remains; however, unlike a
traditional blow-down system, the pressurant gas in a VaPak system is itself also propellant and can be utilized in a
suitable engine. A perfectly simultaneous transition from liquid to gas expulsion in both propellants cannot be
achieved outside of a computer simulation, and the resulting transition gap (the time during which one propellant is
liquid and the other is gaseous) will cause engine operation at very lean or very rich conditions.

III. Applications
VaPak’s potential for low-cost, high-reliability liquid
propellant rockets has long been understood. There are
several application areas where this technology offers
unique benefits and displays significant synergism with
other system elements.
Many programs have been attempted to leverage the
reusability of launch vehicles as a mechanism to reduce
cost. For any Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV), one of
the key design drivers is the manner in which the reus-
able components are returned to the original launch site.
When analyzing the use of RLV’s for the delivery of
cargo, it quickly becomes apparent that the most cost
effective solution is a reusable first stage booster, pared
with a low-cost expendable upper stage (or stages). Va-
Pak systems are ideally suited for this application, ena-
Figure 6: Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS)
bling high performance yet low-cost expendable upper
concept using RLV booster with VaPak driven ex-
stages to be paired with higher cost, fully reusable first
pendable upper stage (courtesy of Holder Aerospace).
stages. Fully VaPak driven launch vehicles are also pos-
sible when launched at altitude (air-launched).

Figure 7: ISRU Mars sample return concept using Figure 8: QuickReach VaPak driven Small Launch
LOX/Methane propellants. Vehicle test article deployed from a C-17 airplane.
(courtesy of University of Washington) (courtesy of AirLaunch LLC)

The ability to restart VaPak vehicles in zero-g without settling and their preference for low ambient pressure en-
vironments also makes them very attractive for upper stage vehicles. VaPak systems can be throttled (unlike solids),
have the superior performance of liquid propellants, yet remain the low weight advantage critical for upper stages.
The VaPak mechanism applies to a large variety of propellant species, both elements such as oxygen or hydrogen, as
well as compounds such as hydrocarbons or monopropellants. This versatility makes it possible to use VaPak pro-

Holder Consulting Group 5 4/14/2009

pellant concepts with ISRU mission architectures. Planetary exploration missions are enabled that range from sur-
face hoppers, to robotic sample return, or automated propellant plants / depots which pre-collect the return propel-
lants for a human exploration mission. Combining VaPak’s zero-g capabilities with it’s long duration storage / dor-
mancy attributes also makes it ideally suited for in space propellant depots or vehicle-to-vehicle propellant transfer.

IV. Summary
The concept of VaPak (vapor pressurization) holds the promise of low-cost, highly reliable, liquid propellant
rocket propulsion. The technology has been investigated by numerous organizations for almost 50 years, and has
matured to present day human spaceflight applications. The physical mechanisms underlying the VaPak process are
well understood and have been verified by extensive test data. VaPak has unique features that make it particularly
attractive for applications where low chamber pressures are not a performance drawback (air-launch, upper stages,
in-space propulsion). VaPak systems use propellant as the pressurization gas, and therefore require no settling in
zero-g applications. Challenges introduced by the VaPak approach include the handling of saturated propellants, and
accurate conditioning of propellants prior to engine burn. The wide variety of propellants which can leverage the
VaPak approach enables the use of ISRU mission architectures; while the high reliability of these systems comple-
ments long duration propellant storage depots both in space (zero-g) and at extraterrestrial (Mars, Moon) locations.

References

i
Aerojet Corporation, Report 8290-5S / N64-22009, “VaPak, A Simple Self-Pressurization System”, June 5 1964
ii
Aerojet Corporation, Report No. 2736, Volume 1, Section C, “Evaporated Propellant Systems – VaPak”, 1965
iii
Bentz, Michael D., Wilkinson, Calvin L., Boeing Aerospace Company, “Experimental Study of Flash Boiling in
Liquid Nitrogen”, AIAA publication, 1983
iv
Dunn Engineering, referenced from http://www.dunnspace.com/self_pressurized_rockets.htm, 11/07/2006
v
Referenced from www.astronautix.com, http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spaipone.htm, 04/14/2009
vi
NASA SBIR Report, Truax Engineering, Contract No. F29601-98-C-0212, 3 April 2006
vii
AirLaunch LLC, www.airlaunchllc.com, April 2009

Holder Consulting Group 6 4/14/2009