Comparison of Catalyst Supports for Hydrogen Peroxide Catalytic Decomposition Monopropellant Thruster

Although [Formula: see text] has been mostly applied as a catalyst support for hydrogen peroxide catalytic decomposition monopropellant thrusters, a convincing rationale for its preference over other support types remains deficient. Therefore, seven supports, which include two [Formula: see text], one [Formula: see text], two [Formula: see text], and two [Formula: see text], were evaluated. First, an impregnation test was performed to check the active material mass fraction, and a gas adsorption analysis was performed to check the surface area, pore volume, and pore size. Second, a droplet drop test was performed to check the reaction delay time. Third, a catalytic decomposition test was performed to check the catalyst mass loss fraction. As a result, [Formula: see text] with a high active material mass fraction, high surface area, high pore volume, low pore size, low reaction delay time, and low catalyst mass loss fraction was considered an appropriate support. In conclusion, the superiority of [Formula: see text] contributed to the existing literature by offering comparative data for establishing a benchmark.