Al AA-94-2980

Laser Ignition in Liquid Rocket Engines

Larry C. Liou
NASA Lewis Research Center
C eveland, OH
Downloaded by HeeJeong Koh on February 19, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1994-2980

30th AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE
Joint Propulsion Conference
June 27-29, 1994 / Indianapolis, IN
For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
370 L'EnfantPromenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20024
 . a -* -’ --.-A, L

LASER IGNITION IN LIQUIDROCKET ENGINES

Larry C. Liou
National. Aeronautics and Space Administration
Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Abstract across the injector face at engine start, because failure to

ignite uniformly in all the compartments may cause a
The objective of this study was to evaluate the localized pressure surge which can damage the baffles and
feasibility of using laser ignition in liquid rocket engines. thc chamber wail. In the past, F-1 and H-1 engines (both
Downloaded by HeeJeong Koh on February 19, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1994-2980

Three mechanisms of laser ignition were evaluated. One
method, Laser Induced Spark (LIS) ignition, was tested
and the results are presented.
For the LIS ignition tests, a Nd:YAG laser, at a
wavelength of 1064 nm and repetition rates up to 20 Hz,
was employed as the ignition source. The laser beam was
expanded and thcn focused through an optical window
into the propellant flow to initiate ignition. Four propel-
lant combinations were used in a subscale test engine at
thrust lcvcls of 133 to 445 N (30 to 100 Ibf). The propel-
Iant combinations were: GOWGHz, GOX/C& (gaseous),
GOX/RP-l, and GOWCO (gaseous). Several parameters
were varied in the tcsts: propellant mixture ratio, chamber
pressure, Iascr energy, and laser repetition rate.
Results presented include ignition outcomes and
ignilion delays. The results for GOWGHz, GOXCK&, and
GOWCO were found to conform to historical results
previously generated using an electric spark ignition
source. But OCWRP-1 differed from the previous results
because of the fundamental differences in the ignition
mechanism between LIS and electric sparks. Also
presented is measurement of the electromagnetic waves
emitted by the LIS’Sat thc radio/rv frequencies. The
emission level rncasured was negligiblc.
I. IntroductioB
High pressure booster engines burning liquid oxygen/
liquid methane (LOWCh),or liquid oxygenkerosene
(LOXIRP-l), have been shown in studies12 to be
potential candidates for future heavy lift launch vehicIes.
If these future engines are designed to have large combus-
tion chambers, then they require baffles to be installed on
the injector face in order to suppress combustion instabil-
ity. The baffled compartments would require an ignition
system capable of uniformly igniting the propellants
J
Copyright 0 1993 by the Amcrican lnsutute ofAcmnauticc
and Asuonautics. Inc. No copyright is as& in thc
Unitcd Sratcs undcr ‘IItlc 17. U.S. Code. Ttz US. Govcmwnt
has a mynlty-frcc ticensc ~ooxerciseall rights ondcr
the copyright claimcd hmein for Govcrnmcnt purposes.
All othcr rights are rescrvcd by thc copyright owllcr.
burning L O m - I ) used hypergolic ignition, but the
hypergolic materials used are difficult to handle. Spark
torch ignition, which has been used in many engines,
including the Space Shuttle Main Engine, can become
overly complex if used to ignite multiple chamber
compartments simultaneously.
In order to find a simpler, yet reliable, ignition
system for future booster engine application, other
ignition systems have been studied3. In that study, various
systems were evaluated using criteria such as compatibil-
ity with LOX-hydrocarbon propellant combinations,
compatibility with baffled injectors, reliability, ease of
use, and complexity. Among the systems studied, laser
ignition received a high overall rating. But the high rating
was based on many speculations because the ignition
concept had never been applied in a liquid rocket engine.
Therefore, a Laser Induced Spark (LIS) ignition program
was organized to experimentally evaluate the ignition
concept in a small scale rocket engine with three propeI-
lant combinations: GOWGH2, GOXICa, and GOXIRP-
1. Also, in order to assess the potential impact in a flight
environment, the ElectroMagnetic Interference (EMT)
caused by the LIS’Swas evaluated. In addition to the
above three propeIlant combinations, GOWCO was
briefly tested. This somewhat novel propellant combina-
tion has been envisioned for use as an in-situ manufac-
tured propellant on Mars. A previous investigation tested
the propellant combination for its ignition characteristics
using ad electic spark ignitor.4 It was found that ignition
of the propeIlants was not possible without the addition of
hydrogen. The difficulty was due to the high activation
energy needed for the GOWCO reaction, In this case, the
added hydrogen served as a catalyst to initiate the
ignition. Based on speculation that the higher power
contained in a LIS may fair better in this situation,
ignition tests were conducted.
 IT. Laser Ignition Mechanisms
There are three mechanisms for laser ignition:
photochemical, thermal, and Laser Induced Spark (LIS)
ignition. In photochemical ignition, Iaser photons dissoci-
ate the target molecules into highly reactive radical
species. These radicals then initiate a rapid chemical chain
reaction, or combustion. Photochemical ignition requires
a close march between the laser excitation wavelength and
the target molecule’s absorption wavelength in order for
dissociation to occur. Only at these matching (resonant)
wavelengths laser radiation can bring about dissociation
and start the combustion. For example, to dissociate
oxygen molecules, wavelength of 157 nm (F laser line)
and 193 nm (ArF laser line) have typically been used.
Unfortunately, the required wavelengths for photochemi-
cal ignition are usually shorter than 700 nm, where
Downloaded by HeeJeong Koh on February 19, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1994-2980
compact and lightweight lasers for flight applications may
no( be available. However, photachernical ignition
requires only a small amount of laser energy, typically
less than a millijoule for O D 2 and some 0 2 and hydro-
carbon mi~tures.56~7 In comparison with other ignition
mechanisms,photochemical ignition can be used to ignite
mixtures at lower pressure and closer to the flammability
limits, so long as a sufficient amount of reactive radicals
can be generated from the target molecules.
The second mechanism, thermal ignition,a uses a
laser beam to increase the kinetic energy, in either
transIationa1, rotational, or vibrational form, of the target
molecules. As a result, the molecular bonds eventually are
broken and chemical reactions take place. The ignition
delay time is typically longer than for the other two laser
ignition mechanisms, and close matching between the
laser wavelength and the target molecule’s absorption
wavelength is also needed. Heating of the material is
mostly done with infrared lasers, but not all of these lasers
are available for flight applications. This mechanism is
uniquc in that it can easily be used to ignite combustibles
in combination of solid, liquid, and gas phases. In many
applications, thermal ignition is employed for igniting
solids because of the absorption ability of the solids at
infrared wavelengths. This ignition method has been used
in solid propellant rockets where the laser is used to first
ignite pyrotechnics, which then serve as an ignition
source for the rocket propellants.
In LIS ignition, a laser beam is focused to create a
plasma kernel, or spark, via either multiphoton absorp-
tion, or the inverse bremsstrahlung process.9 This spark
emits light, heat, and a shock wave to the surrounding
medium,supplying energy to initiate combustion. LIS
ignition is mainly a thermochemical process in which the
heat generated in both the laser spark and the emanating
2
shock wave is responsible for ignition. To produce sparks
for ignition, laser beams are typically pulsed at a Q-switch
pulse duration of nanoseconds, and focused to provide the
high power density required. Infrared (10.6 p)and near
infrared (1.06 p)are only two of the many wavelengths
that have been used to ignite 0 2 / H 2 and hydrocarbon
mixtures. LIS ignition is less selective in its laser wave-
length than the other two mechanisms. In fact, as long as
the laser power density, or irradiance, at the focus is
sufficiently high to generate heat for ignition, it does not
matter what laser wavelength i s used. This could bc a
major convenience when applying this ignition concept in
flight applications, since powerful pocket-sized infrared
diode lasers, weighing just a few pounds, are now widely
avaiIable. LIS ignition has primarily been applied to
igniting gaseous mixtures, although in one instance it was
used successfully to ignite liquid fuel.10 All three methods
of applying laser for ignition have been investigated in the
past, and each ofthem has shown its own set of merits.
Ultimately, the decision o f which mechanism to employ
depends strongly upon the type of application. For the
present investigation, LIS ignition was chosen for testing
because it could be achieved with a wide range of
wavelengths using common optics and offering a better
prospect for an available flight-qualified laser in actual
application. Also, it had shown reliability and an accept-
able ignition delay in the previous experiments.
In. Test D,escription
Objectives and Parameters
The objective of the tests was to gain insight into the
feasibility and characteristics of LIS ignition in liquid
rocket engines. The test program sought specific informa-
tion on ignition regimes and ignition delays in terms of
the engine pre-ignition chamber pressure, propellant
mixture ratio, and laser energy. Also of interest was the
level of electromagnetic waves at radio/TV frequencies
emitted by the LIS’S.
Laser Ignition Svstem
The ignition system used in the experiment consisted
of a laser and the beam-steering optics. They are shown in
Figs. 1 and 2. The laser was Nd:YAG with a wavelength
of 1.06 pin, a beam diameter of 9.5 m m and a Q-switch
pulse duration of 9 nsec minimum. The puIse duration
actually used during the tests was approximately 100
nsec, and this value is used to calculate the laser power in
the following sections. The laser could be operated to
yield either a single pulse or multiple pulses at a repetition
rate up to 20 Hz. Pulse energy was adjustable from a few
millijoule to 1 J. The beam-steering optics, in the order
 1

... ... .

-";
.I
Downloaded by HeeJeong Koh on February 19, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1994-2980

h v c n c d by the beam, included R pellick beam splittler, a SirnulatedBin Cornbu$,nLh&xL!WLJ

periscopc, a 45" mirror+a 3x beam cxpanrlet, and a
focusing Icns. The pcllicIe beam splitter cxmcted n
fraction of the beam for cnegy measurement. Tliz
pcfiscope clcvatcb the heam, and the expander (Galilrm
type) crthge4 the heat1 SO that it could he more tightly
fwused by the focwing lens. '!'tie focd Ien~qhused was
15 Clf'l.
. .
The simulated MCC used in rbe experiment is a
subscale rockct engine of which the wii~bustionchcmbw
accommodatesup tcr four optical wjnctows made of
sapphire, It is shown in figs. 3 and 4.Ttzc optical win-
dows d b w d (I) focusing of the laser bcarn into lhe
chamber to initiate ignition, (2) visually aligning the

3
 Downloaded by HeeJeong Koh on February 19, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1994-2980

3
 . .
Downloaded by HeeJeong Koh on February 19, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1994-2980

."
Figure 5.--lnjectow shared by all gas~ouspropellants; one, thrm, and five elements COnCenPYlC
tubas,

Figure 6.--tnjmws far GOWRP-'I; gas-on liquid impinging pentad and Mplat elmvmts.

injcctors shxcd by all thc gaseous propellant combina-

tions consistcd of conceiitric-tube injjecrion elements.
Onc. thrw, and five element injectors wcw used. For tho was used to scyucrice aII of
gaslliquid propllmt combination, atre injectors had gas- laser firing. To fire the
on-Iiquid impingiug triplet iXtd pcntad elcmeits. a pmonaI computer

5
 Downloaded by HeeJeong Koh on February 19, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1994-2980

6
rind
....‘

_:....
 E.= Energy in a laser pulse, J
t = Pulse duration, s
A = Area of the laser focus, cm2
d = Diameter of the laser focal plane, crn
A = Laser wavelength, cm
f = Focal length, cm
di = Diameter of the laser beam entering focusing lens,
cm
The ignition results obtained from the tests are
plotted in Fig. 8 along with the “approximate ignition
limits” taken from Refs. 11 to 14.It should be noted that
the ignition results given by the referenccd works werc
collected using a variety of experimental setups all
somewhat different to the present work. Most of the
Downloaded by HeeJeong Koh on February 19, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1994-2980
referenced setups premixed the gases and ignited them at
a relatively nonflawing state. However, regardless of the
difference in the test setups, the result of the present
experiment conforms closely to these “approximate
ignition limits” as indicated by the figure. In other words,
the flow speed of the combustible mixture seemed to have
a negligible effect on ignitian. This is attributed to the
rapid chain reaction found in an oxygedhydrogen system
caused by the low activation threshold and fast kinetics.
When the mixture ratio was low, at pressures from 50 to
350 kPa, the ignition firnits spanned from olf = 1.1 to 1.4.
-- The highest mixture ratio ignitable was o/f = 130.
The laser energy value used in the tests was approxi-
mately 80 mJ. This energy level produced consistent
sparks in the GOWGH2. The power density at the focus
7
I I I I I I
0 20 40 80 80 loo 120 140 160
mkburr ratio,
Figure 9.--GOWGH2 ignltlon delay.
was 2.2X1011 W/cm2. When ignition attempts failed,
higher laser energy up to 122 mT near the limits of the
optics was used, but it was found that when the mixtures
were not ignitable at lower laser energy they were also not
ignitable at a higher energy. This implies that the ignition
failed because of inadequacy of either the mixture ratio or
the pressure but not the ignition energy. The laser was
pulsed at 20 Hz in several runs where ignition had failed
using a single pulse, but still did not produce ignition.
The ignition deIay times are plotted in Fig. 9. The
pre-ignition pressure of the plotted points ranged from
103 to 317 kPa (15 to 46 psia). In the figure, a curve (the
dotted line) has been fitted to the data. As can be seen
from the curve, ignition delay timing was indeed a
function of the mixture ratio. At around the stoichiometric
value, ignition delay takes on the minimum. As the
mixture ratio deviates from the stoichiometric value,
ignition delay increases. The pressure variation was too
small to be a factor.
The ignition results are presented in Fig. 10. As for
GOWGH2, the approximate ignition limits are also drawn
based on the same references, The ignition limits based on
the present test results are also shown (in solid lines), and
they are: On the fuel. rich side, the limits of mixture ratio
were 1.8 to 2.2 and on the oxidizer rich side, 20, as
pressure ranged from 100 to 300 kPa (15 to 44 psia). The
ignition limits of the present tests, when compared to
those based on the references, appeared to have shifted
right on the fuel rich side and shifted left on the oxidizer
rich side. This “narrowing” of the ignition regime, not

l 10
Downloaded by HeeJeong Koh on February 19, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1994-2980
mMUm ratlo, on'
Flgure lO.--GOWCH, ignltlon regime using LIS.
seen in the GOWGH:! case, is attributed to the fact that in
this experiment GOWCH4 was flowing at a high speed
under turbulent conditions where heat loss by the ignition
kernels (laser sparks in this case) became significant
enough to affect the ignition outcome. That the GOWCH4
ignition was affected by the flow speed where GOXIGH2
was not can be explained by the difference in their
activation thresholds and kinetics.
The laser energy used was 64 d or more. The power
density at the focus was 1.X x 1011 W/cm2 or more. All
energy values produced consistent sparking in GOWCH4
in all tests. Higher energies up to 247 mJ were used in the
mixtures that were not ignitable at lower laser energy, but
also failed to cause ignition.
bnMn
no Ignition
0 1 1 , I , , I I ,
0 2 4 6 0 10 12 14 18
mbrtura rstlon. otf
Flgure 11.+OWCH4 ignltlon delay.
Ignition delays are show in Fig. 11. In the figure, a
fitted curve (the dotted line) is also shown. As can be
seen, the ignition delay timing is again a function of
mixture ratio. As the mixture ratio neared the stoichiomet- 1
1'
ric value, ignition delay decreased to a minimum.
GOWCO
1
n.
The results of the abbreviated tests using the GOW
CO propellant combination are shown in Table I. The
propellant mixture ratio used was 0.55, near the stoichio-
metric value of 0.57. Chamber pressure prior to ignition
was 117 M a (17 psia). As indicated by the table, no
ignition was attained as the laser energy was increased
and repetitive pulsing was used until water was injected
into the chamber.
The results obtained by Linne et al.4 showed no
ignition at this mixture ratio as well. However, when
hydrogen in the amount of 0.05 percent, by weight, o f CO
was added to the flow, ignition was successful. Compared
to the present experiment, the flow rates used by Linne et
al. were only one-third as much, but the pre-ignition
chamber pressure was slightly higher. The spark source of
that experiment was an ordinary electrical spark plug with
power at least one order of magnitude less than the laser
sparks (electrical spark power of approximately 30 d/10
p versus the laser spark power of 70 m J / l O O nsec).
As indicated, when a small amount of water was
injected into the chamber by means of a syringe, ignition
was attained. It is suspected that the water, as in the case
of hydrogen addition, also served as a catalytic agent to
bring about the ignition. Near the plasma kernels, or
sparks, some hydrogen species could have separated from
water molecules and acted as a catalyst. Also, the minute
amounts of H+, OH-, and other ionic species commonly
found in water could also have reacted with charged
particles in the sparks and initiated ignition. Unfortu-
nately, not enough measurements have been taken to
confirm these speculations.
GOXIRP-1
The outcome ofthe GOX/RP-l tests are shown in
Fig. 12. All tests were conducted at atmospheric pressure
while the laser energy and propellant mixture ratio were
varied. The laser energy values reported here do not
account for the loss due to laser beam scattering and
absorption by the propellant spray in the chambcr. The
actual amount of laser energy delivered to the focal point
I I was expected to be significantly less than the values i
18 20 reported here.
8
 TABLE 1.-IGNITION OUTCOME OP GOWCO
I I 1 I
Reading Laser pulse PuIsc energy, Power density, Outcome Comments
number repetition rate dlpulse W/crn2 (Ignition?)

Single pulse 68 1.9 x 1011 No

Single pulse 137 3.8X1011 NO
20 Hz 146 4.1 X 1011 No
4 20 H2 136 3.8X 1011 Yes Water in chambet
I I I ,

According to a set of data previously collected at

Lewis Research Center, GOX/RP-1 was ignitable at a
218mJ
mixture satio of 0.6 at atmospheric pressure. The data was
5-
gcneratcd using an electric spark plug of 30 mJ per spark,
300 sparks per second, in an ignitor equipped with a
plarelct injector to enhance mixjng. In Fig. 12, a dashed
!l
Y

i
Downloaded by HeeJeong Koh on February 19, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1994-2980

vertical line is drawn at o/f = 0.6 and is termed “approxi-

mate ignition Ximits.” Whereas a solid line is drawn to 4-
separatc the ignition from nonignition regions of the
present cxperirnent. This solid line begins at roughly o/f =
3.0with laser pulse energy E = 325 ml and ends at olf =
222mJ
4.5 with E = 190 d, crossing over thc stoichiometric
mixture ratio of 3.4. By comparing the positions of the
two lines, it i s apparent that laser ignition has produccd a
shift of the ignition limit towards the higher mixture
2l
1
23lmJ

ratios. This can be explained by the fact that as the spray 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

became thinner at the higher rnixturc ratios, optical mtxture ratio,off
breakdowns-the ignition mechanism relied upon in LIS Flgure 13.--GO%/RP-l ignition delay.
u ignition-became more intense due to less interference of
beam propagation by the fuel droplets. The more intense
example, at o/f = 3.5 to 6.0, increasing the laser energy
optical breakdown, or laser spark, then yielded ignition.
did produce successfa1ignition. This observation was
Furthermore, in the GOXliRP-1 tests, the fact that
contrary to the gaseous propeliants cases in which
increasing laser energy often brought on ignition hinted
increasing laser energy did not improve ignition.
that the optical energy loss was an important factor. For
Ignition delay data are presented in Fig. 13. The
I
I
relationship between the delay and propellant mixture
A ratio seems obscured. This is understandable because, in

\.
I
I A addition to the dependence on the mixture ratio, ignition
I
_-. rpproxlmrte delay also is a strong function of the fuel spray character-
1 A *: 0 IgnHbn Ilmits
istics. The irregularities in a fuel spray can produce
I
inconsistent ignition timing. For example, if a large fucl

:\
I
I
I droplet passes through the ignition region, it can delay the
ignition process by requiring extra time and energy for
A 0.
vaporization prior to ignition. In one reported expri-
A ment,lo fuel droplets could not even be ignited unless a
secund laser pulse was used 50 p after the first one.
1
t A
150 A
I
L
1 A
I
I
I
The electromagnetic emission of laser sparks was
I# 1 I I measured at a laser energy of 225 d and pulse duration
1 10 100 of 25 nsec full-width-half-maximum.Results are pre-
rnMur4 ratio. off sented in Fig. 14. The permissible emission level far
Flgure 1 2 . 4 O W R P - 1 ignltlon outcome.

9
 90
70
50
30
Downloaded by HeeJeong Koh on February 19, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1994-2980
FRECtUENCY
Rgure 14.-Electromagnetic waves emlssion from lsser Induced sparks.
space flight, specified by NASA MSFCSPEC-S21B, is
also shown in the figure for reference. It is evident that
LIS'S do not emit electromagnetic waves that would cause
EM1 on board a spacecraft. On the contrary, as shown in
Fig. 15, a conventional electric spark plug generates quite
a high level of noise exceeding what i s permitted for
space flights. Note that the energy of 400 mJ, higher than
the 225 mJ in the laser sparks, was not the main reason
for the high emission level. Instead, the rapid changes,
during discharge, of the amount of electrical current
across the spark gap, which served as a good-sized
emission antenna, was the reason for the high emission.
V. Conclusions
For GOX/GH2, the ignition limits of the present
experiment conform to the previous studies. When the
mixture ratio was low, at pressures from 50 to 350 kPa,
the ignition Iimits spanned from o/f= 1.1 to 1.4. The
highest mixture ratio ignitable was o/f = 130. Ignition
delay was under 1.0 rns for mixture ratios from o/f = 1.8
to 120 at pre-ignition pressures of 103 to 317 kPa (15 to
46 psia). Ignition delay increased as the mixture ratio
deviated from the stoichiometric value. when mixtures
were not ignitable at lower laser energy they were also not
ignitable at higher energies. The laser was pulsed at 20 Hz
10
[MHzf
in several runs where a single pulse had failed to ignite
the mixture, but the multiple pulses also failed to bring on -
'
ignition.
For GOWCa, ignition limits were 1.8 to 2.2 on the
fuel-rich side and 20 on the oxidizer rich side at pressures
of 100 to 300 Wa (15 to 44 psia). The ignition regime was
narrower than the previous experiments. Ignition delays
were under 4 ms for mixture ratios from 2 to 18, and
tended to decrease to a minimum near the stoichiometrjc
mixture ratio. Neither higher laser energies nor multiple
laser pulses improved ignition.
For GOX/CO, the mixture ratio tested was 0.55 at a
chamber pressure of I17 kPa (17 psia), No ignition was
attained until a small amount of water was injected into
the chamber prior to startup. The maximum laser energy
used was 146 mJ.
For G O W - 1 , the resultant ignition regime
bordered on a line passing through off zz 3.0 with laser
pulse energy E = 325 mJ and o/f = 4.5 with E = 190 mJ.
Increasing Iaser energy brought improvement in ignition.
Ignition delay was under 5.2 ms from olf = 3 to 16.2 with
the minimum of 1.6 ms occuning at o/f = 3.
 NASA L e R C E M 1 TEST FACILITY
00
MSPC
--I- . SPARK
dOO m J ,
60
40
20
Downloaded by HeeJeong Koh on February 19, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1994-2980
014 .l 1 10
FREQUENCY
Flgure 15.--Etectromagnetlc waves emisslon from sparks of an electricat spark plug.
The clectromagnetic emission of laser sparks was
found to be below the permissible level for space flight,
a<specified by NASA MSFC-SPEC-521B. It is evident
that LIS’Semit a negligible amount of electromagnetic
waves and are not likely to cause EM1 on board a space-
craft.
LIS ignition is highly feasible for GOWGH2, GOW
C&, and moderately compatible with GOWCO and
GOX/RP-1. Laser sparks ignited the first two propellant
combinations with ease, but required an additive in case
of carbon monoxide and encountered the problem of
beam energy loss in RP-1. Finally, it has been found that
laser induced sparks are not likely to cause EM1 an board
a spacecraft.
References
1. W.P. Luscher and J.A. Mellish, “Advanced
High Pressurc Enginc Study for Mixed-Mode Vehicle
Application,” NASA CR-135141, 1977.
2. V.A. Caluori, R.T. Conrad, and J.C. Jenkins,
“Technology Requirements for Future Earth-to-
Geosynchronous Orbit Transportation Systems,”
NASA CR-3265, 1980.
11
12 . O c t 1993 I O : 06: 33
NARROWBAND
5218 - RE02 SLOW N666B
IGNIYER C M l
0 . 5 CM G A P (IMFO)
100 1000
[MHZ]
3. B.S. Armstrong, “Ignition Systems for Liquid
Oxygen (LOX)/Hydrocarbon Booster Engines,”
NASATM-102033,1989.
4.D.L. Linne, J. Roncace, and M.F. Groth,
“Mars In Situ Propellants:Carbon Monoxide and
Oxygen Ignition Experiments,” NASA TM-103202,
1990.
5 . A.W. Miziolek and R.C. Sausa, “Photochemi-
cal Ignition Studies: I. Laser Ignition of Flowing
Premixed Gases,” U.S. Army Ballistic Research
Laboratory TR BRL-TR-2644, Feb. 1985.
6. B.E. Forch and A.W. Miziolek, “Photocherni-
cal Ignition Studies: II. Oxygen-Atom Two-Photon
Resonance Effects,” U.S. Army Ballistic Research
Laboratory TR B&TR-2740, June 1986.
7. B.E. Forch and A.W. Miziolek, “Photocherni-
cal Ignition Studies: III. Ignition by Efficient and
Resonant Multiphoton Photochemical Formation of
Microplasmas,” U.S. Army Ballistic Research
Laboratory TR BRLTR-2809, June 1987.
8. R.A. Hill, “Ignition-Delay Times in Laser
Initiated Combustion,” Applied Optics, Vol. 20, pp.
2239-2242,198 1.
 9. Y.P.Raizer, Laser-Induced Discharge Phe-
noniena, Plenum Publishing Corporation, New York,
1977.
W
10. E.K.Dabora, “Laser Ignition of Liquid Fuel
Drops,” presented at the 7th ICICOGER, Gijttingen,
Federal Republic of Germany, Aug. 20-24, 1979,
Copyright to AIAA, 1980.
.
11. H.F. Coward and G.W. Jones, “Limits of
Flammability of Gases and Vapors,” United States
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Bulletin
503,1952.

12. B. Lewis and G. Von Elbe, “Combustion

Flames and Explosions in Gases,” Academic Press,
New York, pp. 323-339,1961.
Downloaded by HeeJeong Koh on February 19, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1994-2980

13. D.R. Ballal and AH.Lefebvre, ”Flame

Qucrnching in Turbulent Flowing Gaseous Mixtures,”
presented at the 16th Symposium on Combustion,
1976.

14. J.S. Chin, “The Analysis of the Effect of

Oxygen Addition on Minimum Ignition Energy,”
AIAA Paper 82-1 160, June 1982.

12