The Response of Propellants to Plasma Radiation 

by Richard A. Beyer and Rose A. Pesce-Rodriguez 

ARL-TR-3189 June 2004 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the 

use thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 

ARL-TR-3189 June 2004 

The Response of Propellants to Plasma Radiation 

Richard A. Beyer and Rose A. Pesce-Rodriguez 

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
ii

Report Documentation Page Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering 

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of 

information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 

1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty 

for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

June 2004 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

October 2002–September 2003 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

The Response of Propellants to Plasma Radiation 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

622618H8011 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Richard A. Beyer and Rose A. Pesce-Rodriguez 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

ATTN: AMSRD-ARL-WM-BD 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-3189 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

 NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

Experiments have been done where standard and research propellants were exposed to the visible and infrared (IR) light from 

a high-energy plasma discharge. Measurements of mass lost by the sample, analysis of the IR spectra of evolved gases, and 

optical microscopy have been used to characterize the response. In addition, the response for graphite-free JA2 conditioned to

hot and cold temperatures has shown that the magnitude of the response for this material is stronger for hot samples. Overall,

the samples show strong response when the light can penetrate further into the samples; the response is limited to a thin layer

at the surface for composite propellants. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

propellant, plasma, ignition, light 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Richard A. Beyer 

a. REPORT 

UNCLASSIFIED 

b. ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED

c. THIS PAGE 

UNCLASSIFIED

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

28 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

410-278-6184 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii

Contents 

List of Figures iv

1. Introduction 1

2. Experimental 1

3. Observations and Discussion 4

3.1 Mass Loss........................................................................................................................4 

3.2 Analysis of Gas Products ................................................................................................4 

3.3 Temperature Effects on GF-JA2 Response.....................................................................7 

3.4 Wavelength Dependence and Response..........................................................................9 

4. Photographic Documentation of Propellant Response 9

5. Summary 16

6. References 17

Distribution List 18 
iv

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Electrical parameters for short (top) and long (bottom) plasma discharge pulses. .........2 

Figure 2. Schematic of experiment to expose propellant samples to plasma. ................................3 

Figure 3. Transmission curve for 1/8-in polycarbonate adapted from figure 10.16 in Applied 

Optics, John Wiley & Sons (1). .................................................................................................3 

Figure 4. Mass loss of GF-JA2 samples plotted as a function of peak power (top) and pulse 

energy (bottom)..........................................................................................................................5 

Figure 5. Infrared absorption spectra for gas evolved from propellant samples when exposed 

to plasma light for (a) GF-JA2, (b) standard JA2, (c) M9, (d) M30, and (e) TGD-033 and 

TGD-031....................................................................................................................................6 

Figure 6. Relative mass loss vs. peak plasma pulse power for GF-JA2 at three sample 

temperatures...............................................................................................................................8 

Figure 7. The rate of continuing mass loss after the plasma light exposure for three sample 

temperature conditions...............................................................................................................8 

Figure 8. GF-JA2 illuminated from low, medium, and high peak power plasma discharge 

(top to bottom). ........................................................................................................................10 

Figure 9. Virgin M9 (top) and irradiated M9 propellant irradiated from bottom edge of 

photo, with damage throughout the sample. ............................................................................12 

Figure 10. Standard JA2, irradiated from bottom edge of photo, with damage limited to 

region near illuminated surface................................................................................................13 

Figure 11. M44 propellant before (left) and after (right) exposure to plasma light......................13 

Figure 12. Plasma-light exposed M30. .........................................................................................14 

Figure 13. St. Marks Powder X5977 and 5978 single-perf grains after plasma irradiation. ........14 

Figure 14. ETPE propellants after plasma irradiation. .................................................................15 
1

1. Introduction 

Research to understand the physics and chemistry of the interaction of high-temperature plasmas 

with gun propellants has been widely discussed for several years. An important difficulty has 

been in separation of the components: (1) hot, high-velocity flow, (2) highly reactive chemistry 

in the flow to attack the propellant surface, and (3) a broad spectrum of radiation at intensities 

unknown in conventional ignition and combustion. While all of these elements are present in 

most plasma ignition scenarios, the relative importance of the plasma components will depend on 

many factors from geometry to pulse length and peak power of the discharge. 

In the present study, attempts have been made to limit the plasma-propellant interaction to that of 

radiation only. Because of the particular approaches used here, the spectrum is limited to 

portions of the visible and infrared (IR) regions. Ultraviolet (UV) light, which is both abundant 

in the plasma (but not necessarily at the propellant) and chemically important, has not been 

explicitly addressed. 

2. Experimental 

The observations described here used a conventional pulse-forming network (PFN) pulsed power 

source to drive the plasma discharge. It consists of a 1700-mF capacitor and inductors of 12 and 

305 mH for short (1 ms) and long (10 ms) pulses, respectively. A clamping diode is used to 

prevent voltage reversal at the capacitor. A model NL2888A Ignitron switches the current. 

While the system is rated at 11 kV, the maximum charging voltage of these observations was 

7.7 kV. Current in the discharge is measured by integrating the output of a Rogowski coil. The 

potential across the discharge is measured by recording the voltage at each electrode with a set of 

high-voltage probes. Typical electrical parameter behavior for the two pulse lengths is shown in 

figure 1. 

A schematic of the apparatus is shown at figure 2. The discharge is between two 4-mm-diameter 

tungsten (W) electrodes separated by 40 mm. A transparent polycarbonate tube with 15.2-mm 

inner diameter and 19-mm outer diameter contains the discharge. This tube serves to isolate the 

propellant sample from nonradiative effects of the discharge as well as enhancing the radiation 

by increasing the pressure of the contained plasma. A generic optical transmission curve for 

polycarbonate is shown in figure 3. As is seen there, it has broad transmission across the visible 

and near IR, and limited transmission in the IR. In particular, it has little absorbance near 

1650 cm-1 (~6.1 mm) where strong nitrate absorption is known. Initiation of the discharge is by 

a 0.13-mm-diameter nickel fuse wire. Explosion of the wire typically consumes ~20 J. The 
2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

time (msec)

parameter (kA/MW/kJ/kV)

current

power

energy

voltage

0

5

10

15

20

25

02468

time (msec)

parameter (kA/MW/kJ/kV)

energy

power

current

voltage

Figure 1. Electrical parameters for short (top) and long (bottom) 

plasma discharge pulses. 

composition of the discharge is unknown. The mass of the wire and the air initially in the tube 

are about equal. 

The primary propellant used here is JA2 sheet, processed without the usual 0.05% graphite, 

referred to here as graphite-free JA2 or GF-JA2. JA2 is a modified double-base propellant 

(nitrocellulose [NC] with nitroglycerin [NG] and diethylene glycol dinitrate [DEGDN] 

plasticizers). The nomenclature for the lot used here is JA2/RPD-445/RAD-PDI-2001-24. 

Average sheet thickness is 4.2 mm. The rectangular propellant samples were mounted ~2 mm 

outside (but not touching) the polycarbonate tube as shown in figure 2. Other standard and 

experimental propellants were also studied in limited quantities. They will be described in more 

detail as appropriate. 
3

polycarbonate tube

sample 

electrodes

Figure 2. Schematic of experiment to expose propellant samples to plasma. 

Figure 3. Transmission curve for 1/8-in polycarbonate adapted from figure 10.16 in Applied 

Optics, John Wiley & Sons (1). 
4

3. Observations and Discussion 

3.1 Mass Loss 

In doing chemical analysis profiling of exposed samples of JA2, it was first noted that the sample 

thickness was variable (2). This resulted in a systematic study of the changes in sample 

thickness and sample mass loss, which has been reported elsewhere (3). The key finding of that 

report was that, under conditions where radiation is important, peak power (or peak current) is 

more appropriate for characterizing a plasma discharge than is the total energy of the discharge. 

Figure 4 shows the mass loss data from that study plotted as functions of energy or power. The 

good correlation with peak power is not unexpected because only the radiation from the plasma 

is interacting with the propellant and maximum radiation intensity scales with peak power and 

not energy. 

3.2 Analysis of Gas Products 

Because of the magnitude of the mass lost from these samples, it was decided to capture and 

analyze the gases produced. The first level of analysis was with methyl violet indicator paper, 

which is commonly used to detect propellant decomposition through its interaction with nitrogen 

oxides. The tests were done by placing a small propellant sample and the indicator paper into 

vials and then exposing it to the plasma radiation. Although the plasma light was found to 

bleach the paper, it was found that placing the paper behind the propellant sample was sufficient 

to preserve the paper color. It was observed that generally the indicator paper did respond to the 

evolved gases from the propellants (especially JA2) and that more power in the plasma discharge 

yielded a more rapid response from the paper. 

Because of the magnitude of the response with methyl violet paper, a more detailed chemical 

analysis of the gases was pursued. This was achieved by placing the propellant samples into 

5-mL gas-tight syringes and placing that assembly against the outside of the polycarbonate 

discharge tube. The amount of gas produced in many cases was sufficient to force the plunger 

from the syringe. 

The gas was then injected into a gas sample cell of a Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analyzer 

for recording of the IR spectral absorption signature. The results of these analyses are shown in 

figure 5 for GF JA2, standard JA2, legacy propellants M9 and M30, and two crystal-filled 

energetic thermoplastic elastomer (ETPE) propellants denoted as TGD-031 (ETPE/RDX/NQ) 

and TGD-033 (ETPE/RDX/TEX). 

Several observations can be made from the absorption spectra. The results of JA2 (figure 5a, 5b) 

indicate that while the magnitude of the response is quite different with and without graphite 

present, the gas composition produced is the same. In both cases, there is abundant CO and CO2 
5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 10 20 30 40

peak power (MW)

percent mass loss

short pulse

long pulse

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 5 10 15 20 25

energy (kJ)

percent mass loss

short pulse

long pulse

Figure 4. Mass loss of GF-JA2 samples plotted as a function of peak 

power (top) and pulse energy (bottom). 

and CH4 but no detectable oxides of nitrogen. This result indicates that the graphite in standard 

JA2 does not change the extent of reaction from the plasma radiation but merely serves to shield 

the inner portion of the sample from the light energy. 

The two legacy propellants, M9 and M30, are expected to have responses which are much 

different from each other. M9 is transparent and quite similar in physical response to the 

GF-JA2, with strong physical changes noted deep into the samples. The gas-phase analysis 

confirms this observation except that there is not as much CH4 observed from M9. The 

abundance of N2O in the M30 gas phase products is probably from nitroguanidine 

decomposition. Because M30 response to the plasma has been characterized as a strong 

interaction limited to a thin layer at the surface, this result is consistent with our earlier 

observations. 
6

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000

wavenumber (cm -1)

absorbance

CO2

CO

CH4

(a)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000

wavenumber (cm -1)

absorbance

CO2

CO

CH4

(b) 

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000

wavenumber (cm-1)

absorbance

CO2

CO

(c)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000

wavenumber (cm-1)

absorbance

CO2

CO

N2O

H2O

(d) 

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000

wavenumber (cm-1)

absorbance

TGD-033

TGD-031

CO2

N2O

(e) 

Figure 5. Infrared absorption spectra for gas evolved from propellant samples when exposed to plasma light for 

(a) GF-JA2, (b) standard JA2, (c) M9, (d) M30, and (e) TGD-033 and TGD-031. 

The ETPE propellants show surprisingly differing responses as seen in figure 5e. (Note that the 

baseline differences are not significant.) Both are filled with RDX, which usually yields 

significant quantities of N2O during thermal decomposition. TGD-031 also contains significant 

amounts of nitroguanidine. However, it would appear that the key observation here is to note the 
7

values of the absorbance values. The three composite propellants (M30 and the TGDs) are 

showing a small surface response to the plasma light and thus are producing quite small 

quantities of gas products. 

3.3 Temperature Effects on GF-JA2 Response 

The mass loss experiments previously mentioned were repeated with the propellant samples 

carefully temperature conditioned prior to the plasma exposure. Three temperatures were used: 

–31 °C, “cold,” 60 °C, “hot,” and “ambient,” which was typically 22–24 °C. Samples were 

weighed before conditioning and within minutes after exposure to the plasma. Samples were 

conditioned for ~3 hr. The time between removal of the samples from the conditioning chamber 

to the plasma discharge was typically 20–30 s. 

It was expected (and observed) that the hot-conditioned samples lost mass (plasticizer) during 

conditioning. To compensate for this effect, double samples were prepared for the hot 

experiments. For each exposed hot sample, a second control sample was also taken from the 

conditioning chamber and placed near the experiment but well-shielded from the plasma. Both 

samples were then weighed after exposure of the one. An average mass loss value was 

determined from the conditioned but unexposed samples. The variability in the loss from these 

unexposed samples is an important source of scatter in the measurements. 

The results of the averages of two series of experiments are shown in figure 6. The error limits 

indicated are estimated based on the scatter and uncertainty of the measurements. As can be 

seen, there is a clear trend toward higher mass loss (propellant response) with increasing sample 

temperature. 

Because of the magnitude of the mass loss from the samples upon plasma light exposure, it was 

decided to monitor the mass of the samples over an extended period of time to determine if 

chemical reactions had been initiated that would make the propellant further decompose. The 

samples were stored in paper envelopes so that evolved gases were allowed to escape and 

autocatalytic effects would be minimized. The samples did continue to lose mass during the ~60 

days that they were monitored. This series of observations resulted in a large amount of data that 

was at first sorted by temperature and power. However, in the final analysis, it seems to make 

more sense after averaging all the power levels together for each temperature. A plot of the 

summary of these data is shown in figure 7. This figure indicates that within the scatter of our 

data after plasma exposure, the rate of loss of mass from the GF-JA2 samples is the same over 

the next 60 days as if the samples had been temperature conditioned only, i.e., the plasma had no 

residual effect on the mass loss rate of our samples. 

These observations indicate that the porosity of the exposed GF-JA2 is sufficient that no 

significant amounts of decomposition products are trapped in the propellant. This conclusion is 

important in the flame spread into the interior of such a propellant following plasma exposure. If
8

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

peak power (MW)

percent mass loss

hot

ambient

cold

Figure 6. Relative mass loss vs. peak plasma pulse power for GF-JA2 at three sample 

temperatures. 

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

days after exposure

slope of mass loss after event

hot

ambient

cold

Slope of heated but 

not exposed samples

Slope of ambient, not 

exposed samples

Figure 7. The rate of continuing mass loss after the plasma light exposure for three 

sample temperature conditions. 
9

the gases flow out freely, then the interior “bubbles” observed are accessible for flames and will 

be expected to be burning surface area shortly after ignition of the outside surface of the same 

grain. 

3.4 Wavelength Dependence and Response 

An often-raised question in this area of research is whether there are specific wavelengths or 

regions of light that produce stronger responses from the propellant. A series of preliminary 

experiments was performed with colored glass filters to isolate broad regions of the spectrum in 

the green to red regions of the visible spectrum. Although there was substantial uncertainty in 

these experiments, the only clear correspondence was with the energy through the filters and the 

response of the propellant; wavelength appeared to be of secondary importance. 

A specific wavelength that has been mentioned (4) as being of possible interest is at 1650 cm–1. 

This peak in the JA2 absorption spectrum is at the position of a known absorption of nitrate 

esters. In order to remove this light from the interaction with the propellant, a suitable filter was 

sought. It was noted that water also absorbs at this same frequency. The apparatus shown in 

figure 2 was modified slightly so that the sample located below the discharge was in a cylindrical 

volume which could be filled with water to above the top of the propellant sample. 

The result was that GF-JA2 samples showed approximately the same level of response with and 

without the water present. There was a major difference however. With the water, the samples 

were further delaminated or pulled apart along the regions of the usual damage. The result was 

consistent with pressurization and sudden release of the pressure. Our interpretation of this 

observation is that the water did absorb enough energy to ablate its surface and send a shock 

wave through the sample. The energy absorbed by the water did not visibly decrease the 

response of the GF-JA2. 

4. Photographic Documentation of Propellant Response 

During the course of this study, much time had been spent documenting propellant response 

photographically. While a thorough record of this would require a separate report, a limited 

number of figures are included here to show the difference in response of some legacy and ETPE 

research propellants. These pictures will perhaps help bring more understanding to the variation 

in the response of these propellants to the plasma discharge. The field of view in the photos 

without a scale is ~12 × 8 mm. 

The response of GF-JA2 to the plasma has been previously documented in our reports (2, 3) and 

by others (5). Figure 8 shows propellant response that is moderate, though strong. The “bubblelike” features are very much two-dimensional. The probable explanation of this feature is 

addressed in detail in another report being prepared concurrently with this one (6). The 
10

Figure 8. GF-JA2 illuminated from low, medium, and high peak 

power plasma discharge (top to bottom). 
11

three photos here are taken from the direction of the surface of the flat carpet roll propellant. The 

amount of “damage” is very much dependent on both the peak power of the plasma pulse and the 

initial temperature of the sample. The result of increasing plasma power or increasing initial 

temperature does not appear to be distinguishable using optical inspection. Note that as the 

response increases, the characteristic size of the bubbles decreases so that there are both more 

and smaller features. 

Figure 9 shows slices taken from a sample of M9 propellant in 0.25-in-diameter stick form 

before and after plasma irradiation. This propellant is semi-transparent or translucent, somewhat 

like GF-JA2. As can be seen, the light has affected the samples throughout the volume. The 

stick was cut axially through the diameter, and the flat surface faced the plasma discharge (lower 

edge of the photo). Figure 10 shows a section of a similarly treated sample of (standard) stick 

JA2. In this typical sample, the damage is isolated to the lower edge, which faced the incident 

light from the discharge. 

Figure 11 shows M44 propellant that is virgin (left) and plasma-light exposed (right). This 

propellant contains sufficient carbon black that it is strongly light absorbing. All the features 

shown are at the surface with no indication of penetration to any significant depth. Figure 12 

similarly shows M30 propellant that has been exposed. It shows no effects at all under detailed 

optical microscope inspection. The samples for both M44 and M30 are 0.25-in solid stick. 

Figure 13 shows grains of double base propellants X5977 and X5978 from General Dynamics 

St. Marks Powder. They were chosen because of their optical transparency. They are similar in 

appearance to M9 except that they are quite rigid. This rigidity is the result of reduced 

plasticizer, which may also result in a greater number of bare NC fibers as potential optical 

absorption points. More discussion of this interpretation is presented in a separate article (2). As 

can be seen in the figure the response is similar to M9 and GF-JA2 but the hardness of the 

material results in physical fracture of the grains. This feature could possibly be exploited in an 

ignition design. 

Research ETPE propellants from Thiokol are shown in figure 14. Both TGD-031 and TGD-009 

show the characteristic surface blisters that are observed with these propellants when exposed to 

the light from the plasma discharge. Although the samples are typically on the order of 2.5 mm 

thick, the damage is usually confined to the front surface; however, an occasional blister will 

appear on the rear surface. Whether this is indicative of random light transmission through the 

material or another process has not been determined.
12

Figure 9. Virgin M9 (top) and irradiated M9 propellant irradiated 

from bottom edge of photo, with damage throughout 

the sample.
13

Figure 10. Standard JA2, irradiated from bottom edge of photo, 

with damage limited to region near illuminated 

surface. 

Figure 11. M44 propellant before (left) and after (right) 

exposure to plasma light.
14

Figure 12. Plasma-light exposed M30. 

X5977 

5978 

Figure 13. St. Marks Powder X5977 and 

5978 single-perf grains after 

plasma irradiation. 
15

TGD-009 

TGD-031 

TGD-033 

Figure 14. ETPE propellants after plasma irradiation. 
16

5. Summary 

A portion of the radiant spectrum from a high-energy plasma discharge has been isolated for 

interaction with a variety of gun propellants. In those propellants with sufficient optical 

transparency, chemical activity and physical damage are observed at depth in the samples. It is 

expected that this type of interaction would produce significantly enhanced surface area for 

burning of exposed propellants. Composite propellants addressed here are uniformly quite 

opaque and produce localized surface interactions. The gas phase products which result from 

these interactions are normal for propellant reactions; optical transparency and stronger response 

produce greater amounts of reaction and gas-phase products. 
17

6. References 

1. Levi, L. Applied Optics: A Guide to Optical System Design; John Wiley & Sons: New 

York, NY, 1980. 

2. Beyer, R. A.; Pesce-Rodriguez, R. A. Experiments to Define Plasma-Propellant Interactions. 

IEEE Transactions on Magnetism 2003, 39 (1), 207–211. 

3. Kappen, K.; Beyer, R. Progress in Understanding Plasma-Propellant Interaction. 

Propellants, Explosives, and Pyrotechnics 2003, 28, 1–5, 2003. 

4. Kaste, P. J.; Kinkennon, A. E.; Lieb, R. J.; Birk, A.; DelGüercio, M.; Newberry, J.; 

Schroeder, M.; Pesce-Rodriguez, R. A. Surface Phenomena of Solid Propellants Ignited by 

Plasma; ARL-TR-2500; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 

2001. 

5. Koleczko, A.; Ehrhardt, W.; Kelzenberg, S.; Eisenreich, N. Plasma Ignition and 

Combustion. Propellants, Explosives, and Pyrotechnics 2001, 26, 75–83. 

6. Pesce-Rodriguez, R. A.; Beyer, R. A. A Theory of Plasma-Propellant Interactions; ARL 

report; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, submitted for 

publication, 2004. 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

18

 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 (PDF INFORMATION CTR 

 Only) DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 COMMANDING GENERAL 

 US ARMY MATERIEL CMD 

 AMCRDA TF 

 5001 EISENHOWER AVE 

 ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-0001 

 1 INST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY 

 THE UNIV OF TEXAS 

 AT AUSTIN 

 3925 W BRAKER LN STE 400 

 AUSTIN TX 78759-5316 

 1 US MILITARY ACADEMY 

 MATH SCI CTR EXCELLENCE 

 MADN MATH 

 THAYER HALL 

 WEST POINT NY 10996-1786 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CS IS R 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CS IS T 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 DIR USARL 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TP (BLDG 4600) 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

19

 4 PRIMEX 

 E J KIRSCHKE 

 AF GONZALEZ 

 J DRUMMOND 

 D W WORTHINGTON 

 PO BOX 222 

 SAINT MARKS FL 32355-0222 

 2 PRIMEX 

 N HYLTON 

 J BUZZET 

 10101 9TH ST N 

 ST PETERSBURG FL 33716 

 1 PAUL GOUGH ASSOC INC 

 P S GOUGH 

 1048 SOUTH ST 

 PORTSMOUTH NH 03801-5423 

 1 GEN DYN DEF SYS PCRL 

 PRINCETON CORP PLAZA 

 N MESSINA 

 BLDG IV STE 119 

 11 DEERPARK DR 

 MONMOUTH JUNCTION NJ 08852 

 1 G & A KELLER 

 84 W WALNUT ST 604 

 ASHEVILLE NC 28801-2816 

 3 VERITAY TECHGY INC 

 E FISHER 

 R SALIZONI 

 J BARNES 

 4845 MILLERSPORT HWY 

 EAST AMHERST NY 14501-0305 

 1 SRI INTERNATIONAL 

 TECH LIB 

 PROPULSION SCIENCES DIV 

 333 RAVENWOOD AVE 

 MENLO PARK CA 94025-3493 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR WE 

 D DOWNS 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000

 2 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR FSA S 

 R KOPMANN 

 B MACHAK 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

1 AUBURN UNIVERSITY 

 DEPT OF CHEMISTRY 

R BLUMENTHAL 

 179 CHEMISTRY BLDG 

 AUBURN AL 36849 

1 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 

 DEPT OF MECHANICS 

M BREWSTER 

 URBANA IL 61801 

2 UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE 

SPACE INSTITUTE 

 D KEEFER 

 MS24 F G CLEMENT 

 ACADEMIC 

 TULLAHOMA TN 37388-8897 

1 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 

 DEPT OF AEROSPACE 

 ENGINEERING 

M KEIDAR 

 2049 FRANCOIS XAVIER 

 BAGNOUD BLDG 

 1320 BEAL AVE 

 ANN ARBOR MI 

 48109-2140 

1 PA STATE UNIVERSITY 

 DEPT OF MECHANICAL 

 ENGINEERING 

T LITZINGER 

 UNIVERSITY PARK PA 16802 

1 ARMY RESEARCH OFFICE 

D MANN 

PO BOX 12211 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC 

27709-2211 

 1 ARMY RESEARCH OFFICE 

CHEMICAL SCIENCE DIV 

B SHAW 

PO BOX 12211 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC 

27709-2211 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

20

1 CDR US ARMY TACOM ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR TZE 

J O’REILLY 

 BLDG 382 

 MCS 120 MM LOS/BLOS SYS ATD 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07871 

1 OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY 

 DEPT OF CHEMISTRY 

D THOMPSON 

 STILLWATER OK 74078 

1 PA STATE UNIVERSITY 

 DEPT OF MECHANICAL 

 ENGINEERING 

S THYNELL 

 UNIVERSITY PARK PA 16802 

1 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN 

 DEPT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING 

 AND MECHANICS 

P VARGHESE 

 AUSTIN TX 78712 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

29 DIR USARL 

AMSRD ARL WM BD 

 W R ANDERSON 

 R A BEYER 

 A BIRK 

 A L BRANT 

 S W BUNTE 

 C F CHABALOWSKI 

 L M CHANG 

 T P COFFEE 

 J COLBURN 

 P J CONROY 

 B E FORCH 

 B E HOMAN 

 S L HOWARD 

 P J KASTE 

 A J KOTLAR 

 C LEVERITT 

 K L MCNESBY 

 M MCQUAID 

 A W MIZIOLEK 

 J B MORRIS 

 J A NEWBERRY 

 M J NUSCA 

 R A PESCE-RODRIGUEZ 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND (CONT”D)

 AMSRD ARL WM BD 

 G P REEVES 

 B M RICE 

 R C SAUSA 

 A W WILLIAMS 

 S PIRIANO 

 AMSRD ARL WM TE 

 J POWELL 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

21

1 K KAPPEN 

 ESTERWAGNERSTR.19A 

 85635 HOEHENKIRCHEN 

 GERMANY 

1 CAVENDISH LAB 

W PROUD 

 MADINGLEY RD 

 CAMBRIDGE CB3 OHE 

 UNITED KINGDOM 
22

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.