Internship Report

Brahmastra Aerospace

Comparison of Liquid, Solid, Electric, and

Nuclear Propulsion Systems for Launch
Vehicles

Submitted by – Mohammed Shahnawaz

Date – 26/04/2025
 Declaration

I, Mohammed Shahnawaz, a student of Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, enrolled in the

program B. Tech in Aerospace Engineering, hereby declare that the Internship Report titled
“Comparison of Liquid, Solid, Electric, and Nuclear Propulsion Systems for Launch Vehicles” has
been carried out for the complete fulfilment of my internship at Brahmastra Aerospace.

I sincerely express my gratitude to Brahmastra Aerospace for providing me the opportunity to learn
and gain valuable knowledge.
Table of Contents

 Introduction

 Literature Survey

 Methodology

 Analysis

 Liquid Propulsion

 Solid Propulsion

 Electric Propulsion

 Nuclear Thermal Propulsion

 Case Studies

 Conclusion

List of Figures

 Figure 1. Simplified diagram of a liquid-fuel rocket (propellant tanks, pumps, combustion

chamber).

 Figure 2. Cutaway diagram of a solid rocket motor (single-piece case and solid propellant
grain)commons.wikimedia.org.

 Figure 3. Schematic of an electrostatic ion thruster (gridded ion engine)

commons.wikimedia.org.

List of Tables

 Table 1. Representative propulsion performance metrics (thrust and specific impulse).

Introduction

Space launch vehicles rely on propulsion systems to accelerate payloads from Earth into orbit. The
main types of propulsion used include chemical rockets – which burn propellant (solid or liquid) to
produce high thrust – and electric propulsion (ion or Hall thrusters) which use electric power to
accelerate propellant to very high exhaust velocities.(nasa.gov) In addition, nuclear thermal
propulsion (NTP) is a proposed technology in which a nuclear reactor heats propellant (typically
liquid hydrogen) to produce thrust.(nasa.govnasa.gov) Each approach has distinct working principles
and trade-offs in thrust, efficiency, and engineering challenges.

Chemical engines, both solid and liquid deliver high thrust-to-weight ratios necessary for launch, but
moderate specific impulse (e.g. 250–450 s). Electric thrusters offer very high specific impulse (≈1000–
4000 s) at the cost of very low thrust, suitable for deep-space manoeuvres.(nasa.gov) Nuclear
thermal rockets promise high thrust with intermediate-to-high specific impulse (e.g. ≈800–1000 s),
roughly twice or more the efficiency of chemical rockets(nasa.govnasa.gov).

This study systematically reviews open-source data on these technologies, comparing their design,
efficiency, and materials challenges. Real-world examples including SpaceX’s Falcon 9 (liquid), ISRO’s
PSLV (hybrid solid/liquid stages), and NASA’s Deep Space 1 (ion propulsion) illustrate practical
performance and applications.
Literature Survey

Extensive literature covers the fundamentals and advances in rocket propulsion. Chemical propulsion
is well-established: solid rockets have simple construction which is propellant cast in a case but
limited specific impulse, while liquid engines are more complex (turbopumps, cryogenics) yet can
achieve higher specific impulse up to 450 s (ntrs.nasa.govwevolver.com). Electric propulsion, by
contrast, achieves specific impulse on the order of thousands of seconds. For example, gridded ion
engines like NASA’s NEXT have exhaust velocities corresponding to ≈ 3000–4200 s (nasa.gov
marssociety.ca). ESA notes that electric thrusters are power-limited meaning they trade low thrust
millinewtons to newtons for very high specific impulse, which reduces propellant needs for high-ΔV
missions (sci.esa.intnasa.gov). Nuclear thermal rockets have been shown (historically in NERVA tests)
to achieve ≈ 825 s that is about twice that of the best chemical rockets – at thrust levels suitable for
launch assistance up to tens of kilonewtons per engine(ntrs.nasa.govnasa.gov).

Material science and engineering considerations are key in all cases. Rocket fuels and oxidizers are
often highly reactive; thus materials must resist corrosion, embrittlement, and ignition in harsh
environments (ntrs.nasa.govntrs.nasa.gov). Liquid engines, running at very high pressures and
temperatures, rely on high-strength alloys (e.g. Inconel, Ni-based superalloys) and regenerative
cooling of the chamber; hydrogen embrittlement and oxygen compatibility are critical challenges (
ntrs.nasa.govntrs.nasa.gov). Solid rockets require case materials and insulation that withstand high
temperature and erosive combustion gases; modern designs use carbon-fibre composite casings and
advanced propellant formulations (esa.int). Electric thrusters face erosion of grids and acceleration
channel walls due to plasma; refractory materials like molybdenum and carbon are used, but lifetime
remains limited by sputtering (electricrocket.orgelectricrocket.org). Nuclear thermal rockets push
materials to the extreme: reactor cores operate at ~2500–3000 K with flowing hydrogen,
necessitating ceramics or composites (e.g. graphite or cermet fuels, W/Mo alloys) that can endure
high temperature and hydrogen attack (ntrs.nasa.gov). These material issues, extensively
documented in propulsion studies, drive ongoing research into new alloys and cooling methods.
Methodology

This study synthesizes open-source data on propulsion system designs and performance, focusing on
authoritative aerospace sources. I reviewed NASA and ESA technical reports and articles (including
NASA Glenn fact sheets, ESA technology briefs) and aerospace journal summaries to extract
quantitative metrics (thrust, Isp, efficiency). Comparative analysis is organized by propulsion
category. Key metrics include thrust-to-weight ratio, specific impulse, and propellant mass fraction. I
also examine operational aspects such as power requirements and duty cycle. Case studies (Falcon 9,
PSLV, Deep Space 1) illustrate real-world implementation. All data are drawn from publicly available
sources (NASA/ESA websites, technical documents, and relevant literature) and cited accordingly.
Analysis

Liquid Propulsion

Liquid-fuel rockets burn cryogenic or storable liquids in a chamber, with turbopumps to feed
propellants (see Figure 1). This allows throttleable, restart able thrust. Typical LOX/RP-1 engines
achieve 450 s (ntrs.nasa.govwevolver.com). Example: SpaceX’s Merlin 1D vacuum engine (RP-1/LOX,
gas-generator cycle) produces 981 kN thrust (wevolver.com). Multiple Merlin engines on the
Falcon 9 first stage deliver ~8.2 MN of thrust in vacuum (spacex.comwevolver.com). Liquid stages
have high thrust-to-weight and can be throttled, but require complex pump machinery and cryogen
management. Materials must withstand cryogenic temperatures and hot hydrogen; NASA notes the
need for hydrogen-embrittlement-resistant alloys and oxygen-compatible designs (ntrs.nasa.gov
ntrs.nasa.gov).

Figure 1. Simplified cross-section of a liquid-fuel rocket stage, showing propellant tanks (orange: fuel,
blue: oxidizer), pumps, combustion chamber and nozzle. Liquid systems use turbopumps to feed
cryogenic or storable propellants into a high-pressure chamber where they combust and expand to
generate thrust.

The Indian PSLV illustrates a multi-stage hybrid approach: the first stage (S139 solid motor) is
augmented by six solid strap-ons, while later stages use liquid engines (isro.gov.in). The PSLV second
stage (“Vikas” engine) produces ~799 kN (isro.gov.in), and the fourth stage (two MMH/MON engines)
each produce ~7.3 kN (isro.gov.in). These mixed architectures highlight how liquid engines provide
thrust after initial solid boost.

Solid Propulsion

Solid rockets contain a pre-cast solid propellant grain in a cylindrical case (Fig. 2). Ignition burns the
fuel-oxidizer mix along its exposed surface. Solid motors yield extremely high thrust-to-weight (useful
for liftoff), but lower specific impulse (~250–300 s) and no throttle ability. A large European Ariane 5
EAP booster (solid) produces on the order of 6–7 MN thrust. PSLV’s first stage S139 motor generates
~4800 kN at liftoff (isro.gov.in). The solid propellant is often aluminized HTPB or similar, delivering
high density impulse. Design challenges include thermal insulation of the case and grain geometry to
control thrust profile. ESA notes recent advances: composite motor cases (carbon-fiber), tailored
grain designs, and improved insulation to boost performance and reduce mass (esa.int). Solid motors
are mechanically simpler (no pumps) and storable, but once ignited cannot be shut down.
 Figure 2. Cutaway diagram of a solid rocket motor

Electric Propulsion

Electric thrusters (ion or Hall effect) use electrical energy to accelerate propellant to high velocities.
Their thrust is very low (milli Newtons to newtons) but their Isp is very high (1000–4000 s). The basic
principle for electrostatic ion thrusters (Fig. 3) is: xenon gas is ionized in a discharge chamber, then
ions are accelerated by high-voltage grids. The NASA NSTAR ion engine (used on Deep Space 1) had a
thrust ≈0.092 N and Isp > ≈3100 s; its successor NEXT achieved ~0.327 N with Isp > up to 4200 s (
nasa.govnasa.gov). Hall thrusters produce slightly higher thrust (tens to hundreds of mN) at
moderate (~1500–2000 s). Efficiency of electric propulsion (power-to-thrust) can reach 60–70%. ESA
points out that because the propellant has little chemical energy, thrusters are power-limited:
converting electrical power efficiently into exhaust kinetic energy is key (sci.esa.intsci.esa.int).
Materials challenges include grid and channel erosion by energetic ions. Advances in lifetime (e.g.
long-duration tested hours) mitigate this; NASA’s Glenn lab tested NEXT continuously for over
51,000 h (nasa.gov). Electric propulsion excels in missions with low thrust requirements but large ΔV
(e.g. orbit raising, deep-space). As Dawn Aerospace notes, Hall thrusters with ~1600 s require much
less propellant than comparable chemical systems (dawnaerospace.com).
Figure 3. Diagram of an electrostatic ion thruster (gridded design): propellant gas is ionized (positive
ions in blue) and expelled through grids at high velocitycommons.wikimedia.org.

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion

Nuclear Thermal Rockets (NTRs) use a fission reactor to heat liquid hydrogen, which then expands
through a nozzle. The result is very high exhaust velocity without carrying oxidizer. Historical NASA
NERVA tests achieved Isp ≈ 825 s (significantly above chemical) at thrust levels ~75,000 lbf (334 kN)
(marssociety.cantrs.nasa.gov). NASA notes that NTR can provide “high thrust at twice the propellant
efficiency of chemical rockets,” reducing trip times for deep-space missions (nasa.gov). In practical
terms, NTR Isp of ~800–1000 s means only half to one-third the propellant mass of a chemical stage
for the same ΔV. NTR engineering challenges are severe: reactor fuel elements must withstand
temperatures >2500 K and high hydrogen flow. Material development focuses on ceramic or carbide
fuels (e.g. graphite or cermet composites) and high-temperature alloys (W/Mo, BeO moderators)
(ntrs.nasa.govntrs.nasa.gov). Radiation shielding and reactor control add complexity. Recent
NASA/DARPA initiatives (e.g. the DRACO program) aim to demonstrate a small NTR by 2027 (nasa.gov
nasa.gov).

Performance Comparison

Table 1 summarizes representative performance of each propulsion category. Chemical rockets (solid
or liquid) provide thrust in the hundreds of kN to MN range with moderate Isp, whereas electric
thrusters produce fractions of a newton with Isp up to several thousand. NTRs (NERVA-class) bridge
the gap: thrust comparable to large chemical engines.

Table 1. Representative propulsion system parameters. Data from NASA, SpaceX, and literature
(isro.gov.inwevolver.comnasa.govmarssociety.ca).

Propulsion Specific
Type Example Engine Propellants Thrust (N) Impulse (s)

~4.8×10^6 (vac)
Solid PSLV S139 (APCP) HTPB (solid) isro.gov.in ~260

SpaceX Merlin 1D ~9.8×10^5 (vac) 348

Liquid (vac) RP-1 + LOX wevolver.com wevolver.com

NASA NEXT
Electric (Ion) (flight) Xenon (gaseous) ~0.3 (max) ~4200

Electric SPT-100
(Hall) (stationary) Xenon ~0.09 ~1600
Propulsion Specific
Type Example Engine Propellants Thrust (N) Impulse (s)

Nuclear NERVA (test LH_2 (heated by ~3.3×10^5 825

Thermal 1972) reactor) marssociety.ca marssociety.ca

Isp values and thrust are illustrative. Solid rocket thrust is initial launch value; Merlin-1D data from
SpaceX tech specswevolver.com.

Thrust-to-Weight and Mission Profile

 Thrust-to-Weight: Chemical engines typically achieve high T/W (of order 100–200) enabling
rapid acceleration from launch pad. For example, Merlin 1D has T/W ~200 (wevolver.com).
Solid boosters are also very high thrust (useful for heavy-lift) though heavier per unit thrust.
Electric thrusters have extremely low T/W , so they cannot launch a rocket, but excel in long-
duration thrust. NTR engines can be designed for high T/W (by optimizing reactor power)
similar to chemical engines, since no oxidizer is needed, but actual flight hardware remains
developmental.

 Specific Impulse (Isp): Electric thrusters dominate (up to ~4000 s) which reduces propellant
mass for high-ΔV missions (nasa.govdawnaerospace.com). Nuclear thermal offers roughly
twice that of the best chemical (≈800–1000 s) (nasa.govmarssociety.ca). Chemical rockets are
limited by propellant chemistry; solid motors ~250 s, RP-1/LOX ~300 s. (ntrs.nasa.gov
wevolver.com).

 Fuel Efficiency: Directly related to Isp. Electric propulsion yields dramatic propellant savings:
NASA notes Deep Space 1 only used ~100 g Xe/day, compared to many kilograms per day for
a chemical thruster providing comparable ΔV (nasa.gov). Chemical propellant (like hydrazine
or hypergolic fuels for satellites) has much higher mass flow. Nuclear thermal also improves
efficiency: an NTR stage can take a given payload further or cut travel time, carrying less
propellant than a chemical stage for the same mission.

Case Studies

 SpaceX Falcon 9 (Liquid LOX/RP-1): The Falcon 9 first stage uses nine Merlin 1D engines
(LOX/Kerosene) with a sea-level thrust of ~7600 kN (≈1.71×10^6 lbf) total (spacex.com).
Merlin 1D has Isp >≈283 s at sea level and 348 s in vacuum (wevolver.com). The engine’s high
thrust-to-weight (~180–200) and reusability are notable. Falcon 9’s performance reflects the
balance of chemical propulsion: the liquid stage generates the bulk of ascent impulse, with
high total ΔV but requiring large propellant mass (~400 tonnes) and complex tankage and
turbomachinery.

 PSLV (ISRO) Hybrid Launch Vehicle: PSLV alternates solid and liquid stages. Its first stage
(core S139 solid motor + strap-on solids) provides ~4800 kN thrust (isro.gov.in). The second
stage uses the Vikas liquid engine at ~799 kN (isro.gov.in), achieving the transition to higher-
altitude flight where efficiency matters more. PSLV’s design exemplifies how chemical solids
give raw liftoff thrust, while liquid stages sustain ascent and orbital injection with higher Isp.
 PSLV consistently places ~1600–1800 kg into SSO, showing robust performance of mature
chemical engines.

 Deep Space 1 (NASA) – Ion Propulsion: Deep Space 1 (launched 1998) was the first
interplanetary spacecraft to use an ion thruster as the primary engine (nasa.gov). Its NSTAR
engine operated for 16,246 hours (nasa.gov), achieving a total velocity increment
(~2770 m/s) with only ~82 kg of xenon. The mission demonstrated the practicality of electric
propulsion: DS1 took longer to depart Earth orbit, but used far less propellant than a
chemical mission would have (nasa.gov). The DS1 ion thruster’s characteristics allowed
extended continuous operation, a trade-off validated by its success at rendezvous and flybys.

These cases highlight that no single system is “best” for all missions. Falcon 9’s liquid engines
dominate Earth launch, PSLV uses a mix to optimize cost and reliability, and DS1 leveraged electric
propulsion for deep-space efficiency. Nuclear thermal rockets, while not yet flown, are being
developed to potentially enable faster crewed missions to Mars by cutting transit time.

Conclusion

Liquid, solid, and electric propulsion each play distinct roles in space launch and travel. Chemical
propulsion (liquid or solid) remains the workhorse for launch vehicles, providing the high thrust
required to overcome Earth’s gravity. Liquid engines offer higher Isp (especially with cryogens) and
throttle control, at the expense of complexity. Solid boosters deliver maximum push with simpler
design but cannot be stopped once ignited (ntrs.nasa.govesa.int). Electric propulsion achieves far
superior propellant efficiency – often enabling missions otherwise infeasible – but with very low
thrust (nasa.govdawnaerospace.com). It is well-suited to orbital manoeuvres and deep-space where
time is less critical. Nuclear thermal propulsion promises a middle ground: high thrust like chemical
rockets but much higher Isp (~800–1000 s)nasa.govmarssociety.ca. The main hurdles for NTR are
material and safety issues, but if overcome, NTR could revolutionize crewed deep-space missions by
dramatically reducing travel time.

In summary, the choice of propulsion depends on mission requirements: payload mass, distance,
time, and cost. A launch vehicle might use multiple systems (as PSLV does) to exploit the strengths of
each stage. Future development (e.g. reusable liquids, advanced electric drives, and nuclear systems)
continues to push these trade-offs. Ongoing research in materials (high-strength alloys, composites)
and power systems (compact reactors, efficient power electronics) will further improve performance.
This comparative study underscores that a comprehensive understanding of thrust, Isp, and
engineering constraints is essential to designing optimal propulsion for any space mission
ntrs.nasa.govdawnaerospace.com.
References

Authoritative texts and data from NASA and ESA publications and the Aerospace Science and
Technology journal; NASA mission documents and SpaceX/ISRO technical releases were used for
case-study specifics.

File:SolidRocketMotor.png - Wikimedia Commons

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SolidRocketMotor.png

File:Electrostatic ion thruster-en.svg - Wikimedia Commons

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Electrostatic_ion_thruster-en.svg

NASA Facts - Ion Propulsion

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ionpropfact_sheet_ps-01628.pdf

Space Nuclear Propulsion - NASA

https://www.nasa.gov/space-technology-mission-directorate/tdm/space-nuclear-propulsion/

NASA, DARPA Will Test Nuclear Engine for Future Mars Missions - NASA

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-darpa-will-test-nuclear-engine-for-future-mars-missions/

Microsoft Word - Chapter12_Final_Halchak_Cannon_Brown_10042015.docx Rev.b.JLC Updates

20160603.docx
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160008869/downloads/20160008869.pdf

Merlin Engine (Merlin-1D) - Falcon 9 & Falcon Heavy

https://www.wevolver.com/specs/merlin-engine-merlin-1d-falcon-9-falcon-heavy

Rocket Physics, the Hard Way: Nuclear Thermal Rockets

https://www.marssociety.ca/2021/04/08/nuclear-thermal-rockets/

ESA Science & Technology - Electric Spacecraft Propulsion

https://sci.esa.int/web/smart-1/-/34201-electric-spacecraft-propulsion

Rocket Physics, the Hard Way: Nuclear Thermal Rockets

https://www.marssociety.ca/2021/04/08/nuclear-thermal-rockets/

High Temperature Behavior of Common Uranium Compounds

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210026680/downloads/ICACC%202022%20Presentation%20-
%20Palomares%20-%20FINAL.pdf