Lalli 1

Improving the Performance of Spacecraft Electric Propulsion

It is a surprising fact to know that it has been 44 years since humans have traveled beyond
Low Earth Orbit and five years since a United States Spacecraft has flown into space (NASA).
Electric Propulsion has the potential to change that; however, current electric propulsion engines
have not operated above 60% efficiency and have not exceeded five Newtons in thrust
(Longmier et al 7: 4 919). They also require kilo or even megawatts of electricity to work
effectively. However, the great benefit of electric propulsion is that it can allow a vessel to travel
at a much faster final speed by applying a small amount of force for weeks or even months at a
time, and accomplishing it at a much lower cost than chemical rockets. Many different electric
propulsion designs exist and have enhanced engine performance, but since one of the greatest
efficiency losses comes from lack of fuel ionizations, finding a better performing fuel will help
to improve the thrust and efficiency levels of the electric propulsion engine.
Electric propulsion was first conceived by Robert Goddard in 1906. The first systematic
analysis was made in 1964, published by Ernst Sthulinger (Goebel, Dan M., and Katz,
Introduction 2). In this same year, engineers at NASAs Glenn research center built the first
operational electric propulsion engine, which made a half hour suborbital flight before falling
back to earth. Early electric propulsion devices used cesium and mercury as propellant, and since
then, there have been several advances on the basics of electric propulsion and thruster
characteristics. Several NASA and Russian institutions developed electric propulsion engines
from solely functioning to provide attitude control to use in deep space applications (Goebel,
Dan M., and Katz, Introduction 2). In the 1980s, Resistojets, which are small low powered
electric propulsion engines, became commonly used for attitude control in addition to station

Lalli 2
keeping applications because of their low mass and electricity requirement (Dorf 8). In 1998,
NASA launched the first ion engine on the Deep Space One probe. The probe was designed to
intercept and study an asteroid and comet (Goebel, Dan M., and Katz, Introduction 2). The
first commercial use of a Hall Thruster by a U.S. manufacturer was in 2004 by The Space
Systems Loral Company. When electric propulsion engines are designed, the fuel that they are
most commonly fueled with is xenon, but it is not the best performing or cost effective fuel to
use (Jahn 7). Xenon is one of six noble gases and is inert except for some reactions with the most
electronegative components (Chernick, Cedric, "The Gases Themselves 1). Currently, most
spacecrafts that have utilized electric propulsion engines have used xenon; some of these
spacecrafts have included NASA's Deep Space One, the EAS's SMART-1, and NASA's Dawn
(Choueiri 59). Although these spacecrafts may have performed better than their chemical
counterparts in terms of final speed and lower weight, the electric propulsion engines did not
yield that much thrust: NASA's Dawn Spacecraft produced only 90mN of thrust, which is very
low (Choueiri 59). Xenon is a very rare gas and extracting it is a lengthy and time consuming
process (Parissenti, Koch, and Pavarin 1). The way that Xenon is extracted is through a process
called fractional distillation. If a plant processes 100 tons of air a day, only 1.2 kg of xenon
would be produced, and processing one cubic meter of air requires 1kWh of electricity
(Parissenti, Koch, and Pavarin 1). Noble gases, such as Xenon, are the byproduct of the
separation of nitrogen and oxygen from the air. Xenon price is highly dependent on the demand
for it, as only large production plants even have machinery dedicated to its production. One of
the benefits electric propulsion has is that they can still provide faster speeds then chemical
rockets because electric propulsion engines apply a small force for a long time. This means that
spacecrafts powered by electric propulsion will start off traveling much slower, but eventually

Lalli 3
will attain a faster final velocity as compared to chemical rockets. One reason that they can do
this is because of the higher exhaust velocity that they have, which increases the thrust produced
by the engine (Dorf 1). In addition, electric propulsion engines are more efficient then chemical
rockets, and they have a longer lifespan, which allows them to achieve a faster final velocity
(Choueiri 65). The lifespan of direct contact engines is dependent on how durable their
accelerator grids are, because bombardment from ions leads to erosion in the grids. This leads to
drops in thruster performance and efficiency (Dorf 14). If equipped with a 200 Megawatt power
source, a Magnetoplasmadynamic engine is capable of transporting humans to Mars within 39
Days (Illin, VASIMR Human Mission To Mars 1). This would be a record breaking speed, and
could also be useful on unmanned trips to the outer solar system where there is currently a lot of
time required to travel to the destinations. The fast speed is also beneficial because less weight
would be required, and there would be a lower exposure to cosmic radiation.
Being able to sustain thrust from an engine for a long time allows a spacecraft to travel to
multiple destinations, which also helps to increase the cost effectiveness of a mission (Choueiri
60). What makes this possible is the fact that electric propulsion engines can function for a very
long time on a small amount of fuel, which means that they can change course using their main
engine instead of coasting through space with only Reaction Control System (RCS) thrusters.
Currently, power generators with a Megawatt class output cannot be used in space because of
their high weight. An electric propulsion mission to a near Earth asteroid would take 133 days
and use 800 kW of electricity (Illin, Low Thrust Trajectory Using VASIMR 12). Although the
lower power means a greater trip time, it also means that less fuel will be used.
Magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) engines are also promising engines for the current exploration
of deep space, and are very good at converting large amounts of power into thrust while

Lalli 4
maintaining high exhaust velocities (NASA, MPD Thrusters). The Compression Engine that is
under development for The CE Program is also an MPD thruster. MPD exhaust velocities can
exceed 100,000 meters/second and current designs typically operate between 200 kilowatts to
200 megawatts with a 50% efficiency rate (Andrenucci 1). According to NASA, MPDs are
currently the most powerful electric propulsion engine (NASA, MPD Thrusters), and there are
two types of MPD thrusters: Direct Contact/Self Field thrusters, and Radio Frequency/Applied
Field Thrusters. Self-field thrusters in their most basic form have two metal electrodes and a high
current is driven through them. Self-field thrusters use high current arcs to ionize propellant and
Lorentz electromagnetic forces to accelerate the propellant (Goebel, Dan M, Katz, Thruster
Principals 5). The arc is driven between the electrode and the cathode which produces the thrust
and propels it out of the engine. Radio Frequency (RF) thrusters use magnetic fields to contain
the plasma so that it does not vaporize the material, and a radio-wave frequency emitter to ionize
the propellant. An RF MPD engine called the VASIMR varies the rockets specific impulse in
order to save propellant weight and electricity during less intense times in the mission (Illin,
VASIMR Human Mission to Mars 1). By equipping a VASIMR engine with a 12MW power
source, humans could be transported to Mars in four months, and a 200 MW mission could take
humans to Mars in four months, and a 200 MW mission could do it in less than two months
(Illin, VASIMR Human Mission to Mars 1). Some of the benefits of RF thrusters are that direct
contact with the hot plasma is eliminated, and that through electromagnetic acceleration, the
exhaust velocities can be boosted and RF thrusters such as the VASIMR outperform directcontact thrusters in terms or thrust and efficiency (NASA, VASIMR Human Mission to Mars).
Despite the promise these engines show, they are still inefficient, have low thrust levels, and
require large amounts of electricity to work. One of the biggest downsides of electric propulsion

Lalli 5
is the inefficiency in ionization, high power consumptions, and low thrust. A maximum of 0.5
Newton was produced during in space tests when using 200 kW to 1MW (NASA, Ion
Propulsion), which is miniscule when compared to the thrust levels produced by chemical
rockets. But chemical rockets are expensive; placing one pound in Earth Orbit costs $10,000, and
they drain their fuels within minutes (Choueiri 60). Although engineers know that ionization
inefficiency is a problem, they are still are unsure of the source of where it comes from.
Ionization inefficiency results in some of the fuel not being ionized, which leads to it not being
used, wasting both fuel and energy in the process (Ross, Jerry, and King 1). After an ion is
created in the engine, the electrons may collide with chamber walls, other electrons, and protons,
but the only beneficial collision that occurs is between ions and neutrons (Ross, Jerry, and King
2). When in an electric propulsion engine, there are three dominant forces acting on the plasma:
magnetic fields, forces from pressure gradients, and collisions (Goebel, Dan M., and Katz,
Plasma Physics 37). It is has been found that there can be to 6% difference in the maximum
thrust efficiency just because of the ionization method used. While there can never be 100%
efficiency, a theoretical example of this situation would be that all ions are produced at the
anode potential and accelerated to the cathode potential (Ross, Jerry, and King 3). Plasma
sheaths may form around the boundary of plasma in order to maintain neutrality between
different charges in the plasma, but these sheaths also interfere with plasma leaving the thruster,
which also can reduce performance (Goebel, Dan M., and Katz, Plasma Physics 73). The
major problem with the low level of thrust that electric propulsion engines have is the fact that
their start up speed will be very low or a chemical booster will be required, and that they cannot
slow down by themselves in any practical amount of time. Electric propulsion engines have one
main practical limitation: power. Although, in theory, an infinite amount of electricity could be

Lalli 6
supplied to the engine, there is only so much weight that can be brought onboard spacecraft that
can be dedicated to power generation and processing (Goebel, Dan M., and Katz, Introduction
2). It has been found that increasing the power supply increases the efficiency and performance
of a thruster, but at the cost of greater weight, a more expensive of the power source and launch
vehicle. This is compared to the limitation of energy in chemical rockets, because as one designs
a rocket engine to produce more and more thrust, this comes at the cost of consuming more
propellant, a much more expensive rocket, and the need for a greater durability of materials in
order to withstand the higher operating pressures that would be required. When an electric
propulsion engine is operating at a high discharge voltages, over 200 V, the penalties in the
ionization process can be noticeable (Ross, Jerry, and King 10). Another main problem of
electric propulsion, especially in Hall Thrusters, is that the width of the thruster plume can have a
wide divergence angle (Dorf 27). This can lead to the plasma contacting the spacecraft surfaces,
therefore damaging them (Dorf 27). When selecting an electric propulsion engine suitable for a
spacecraft, different types of electric propulsion have different functions: Electromagnetic
Propulsion operates by heating propellants with an electric arc discharge, which provides a low
level of thrust suitable for small maneuvering and attitude control. Resistojets and Arcjets are
examples of thrusters in this class. Resistojets heat the propellant in a chamber which increases
the exhaust velocity, and the specific impulse is severely limited in this thruster (Goebel, Dan
M., and Katz, Introduction 4). Arcjets operate in a similar manner, but with the propellant
heated by passing it through a high current arc in the nozzle feed system. The next form of
electric propulsion is the Electrostatic propulsion, where a propellant is ionized using a direct
contact method, and then is accelerated out of an engine by using biased grids (Choueiri 4). The
accelerator grids work by having a positive magnetic charge to attract the plasma, and then

Lalli 7
negative charge to propel it out of the engine (Choueiri 5). Since plasma can be easily controlled
by magnetic forces, this provides a way to gain thrust. However, the key problem with the
accelerator grids is that after a long period of operating time, the surfaces on the grids will erode,
which drops performance. Ion and thrusters are examples of engines in this category, and have
been used the greatest number of times throughout the course of electric propulsion history.
Electromagnetic propulsion is another type of electric propulsion the ionizes the propellant either
through direct contact with electric arcs or through radio frequency waves before being
accelerated through the Lorentz force (Andrenucci 13). This is considered to be the most
powerful type of electric propulsion that is currently available. This begun with only direct
contact MPD thrusters that injected Lithium or Xenon gas into a hollow cathode, and used the
force from a magnetic field generated in order to accelerate the gases out of the thruster and
create thrust (Choueiri 4). Currently, there are Radio Frequency (RF) thrusters such as the
VASIMR that exist, and they operate with a similar principle as a direct contact MPD, but with
different methods used to generate thrust. In the VASIMR, there are two steps used in the
ionization process to gain the maximum thrust. Inert propellant is first injected in and is ionized
by the RF coupler. Next, the plasma is heated up to one million degrees Celsius in the Ion
Cyclotron Coupler (ICH) coupler, and the Lorentz force is applied to give the propellant the
maximum exhaust velocity before it is pushed out of the engine (Longmier and Cassady 1). Hall
thrusters are also in this category, and use a cross field discharge described and a perpendicular
electric field accelerates the ions to high exhaust velocities, while a transverse magnetic field
inhibits electron motion that would short out the electromagnetic field (Goebel, Dan M., and
Katz, Introduction 4). The five parts in an electric propulsion system are the power source,
power processing unit, propellant management system, control computer, and the thruster itself

Lalli 8
(NASA, Ion Propulsion). When an electric propulsion system is being designed, it is important
to make a series of calculations and computer simulations in order to determine things such as
the thrust created, and the energy required to ionize the propellant. Although a computer software
is best for this application, they are not readily available for the public to use, so there are some
calculations that can be done by hand including the rocket equation created by the Russian
scientist Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky in the year 1903 and which allows a change of velocity to be
calculated based on the velocity of the propellant outputted (Choueiri 3). The thrust of an engine
is given by the time rate of change by the momentum (Goebel, Dan M., and Katz, Thruster
Principles 21). There are several flight trajectory and mission design software available, such as
the Copernicus software developed by the University of Austin Texas, released to NASA and its
affiliates and is capable of projecting many types of mission trajectories including different
gravitational influences and variable specific impulse trajectories.
Electric Propulsion thrusters have a great amount of potential and can greatly enhance
current spaceflight technology and open up many possibilities that can enhance the speed and
mission time as compared to chemical engines. Still, electric propulsion engines are not very
efficient, as currently the most efficient engine, the VASIMR VX-200 provides 60% efficiency,
and most provide lower levels (Longmier, Benjamin, and Cassidy 1). Ion propulsion is the most
common form of electric propulsion, as it was one of the first conceived electric propulsion
concepts. Magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters are also promising, as they are capable of very high
exhaust velocities and also can convert high power levels to thrust levels. Direct contact thrusters
have performed in space, and RF thrusters have performed well on ground tests and in
simulations. Xenon is the most commonly used fuel and although it has a lower ionization
potential, it is very expensive to produce, which can make electric propulsion less attractive.

Lalli 9
There are other fuel options that are more practical for use, and at higher power levels they are
nearly identical in terms of performance. The ones that research has shown to have potential are
Argon, Krypton, and distilled water. Based on the data collected in secondary analysis, a
correlational analysis will be conducted on the fuels. Although this correlational analysis will
provide a better insight on current fuel performance, there are several untested fuels that need to
be researched and potentially as early as next year, the Compression Engine will be able to test
those fuels, and this provides new data on the untested fuels as well as ones currently used
aboard spacecraft today.

Lalli 10

Works Cited
Andrenucci, Mariano. "Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters." 2010. PDF file.
Chernick, Cedric. "The Gases Themselves." The Chemistry of The Noble Gases.
N.p.: US Atomic Energy Commission, 1967. 1-9. Print.
Choueiri, Edgar. "New Dawn For Electric Rockets." Scientific American (2009): n.
pag. Print.
Dorf, Leonid. "Introduction to Space Plasma Propulsion." Plasma Physics Summer
School. 2 Aug. 2006. Lecture.
Goebel, Dan M., and Katz. "Basic Plasma Physics." Fundamentals Of Electric
Propulsion: Ion and Hall Thrusters. N.p.: California Institute of
Technology Jet Propulsion Lab, 2008. 37-91. Print.
---."Introduction ,Thruster Principles."
Fundamentals Of Electric Propulsion: Ion and Hall Thrusters. N.p.:
California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Lab, 2008. 1-36. Print..
Illin, Andrew. Low Thrust Trajectory Using VASIMR. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
Ilin, Andrew, et al. VASIMR Human Mission to Mars. N.p.: U of Maryland, 2011. Print.
"Ion Propulsion." NASA. N.p., 21 May 2008. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.
<http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs21grc.html>.
Jahn, Robert. "Electric Propulsion." Encyclopedia o f Physical Science and
Technology. N.p.: Academic Press, 2002. N. pag. Print.
Longmier, Benjamin, and Leonard Cassidy. "VX-200 MPD Thruster Performance
Exceeds 50% Efficiency." Propulsion and Power 27.4 (2011): n. pag. Print.

Lalli 11
"Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters." NASA. NASA's Glenn Research Center, n.d. Web.
21 Sept. 2015. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/
fs22grc_prt.htm.
McQuarrie, Rock, and Gallogly. General Chemistry. Fourth ed. N.p.: University
Science Books, 2011. Print.
Parissenti, Koch, and Pavarin. Non-Conventional Propellants for Electric
Propulsion Aplplications. N.p.: n.p., 2010. Print.
Ross, Jerry, and Lyon King. "Ionization Efficiency In Electric Propulsion
Devices." Michigan Technological Univeristy: n. pag. Print.