ORBIT TRANSFER ESTIMATES with ELECTRIC PROPULSION

And the DUAL-OPTIMUM METHODOLOGY

Oscar Biblarz
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, 93943

ABSTRACT

The work focuses on how to choose a most appropriate electric thruster given a space
mission. The relevant ideal flight formulation is enhanced by introducing a tankage mass
fraction into the payload fraction equation. An operating specific impulse is defined
where the spacecraft’s payload fraction and the thruster’s propulsive time are jointly
optimal for the mission. Detailed information is given for choosing such ‘dual optimum’
given the change of vehicle velocity. Illustrative cases of interest show merits of the
dual-optimum approach, also displaying limits on minimum thrusting time and maximum
payload fractions along with the role of the ratio of the thruster efficiency to its specific
mass on thrusting times. Our results indicate that a spacecraft using electric propulsion
can deliver one-half of its initial mass as payload from LEO to GEO in about 9 days, to a
low Lunar orbit in about 30 days, and to a Mars orbit in about 210 days. Our results
compare favorably with other published optimal approaches.

Nomenclature
g0 9.81 m/s2
Isp specific impulse, sec [not a unit of time]
Isp)opt dual-optimum specific impulse, sec
m0 initial spacecraft mass, kg
mpl payload mass, kg
mpp power-plant mass, kg
mpl/m0 payload initial mass fraction
tp propulsive time, s (days)
tp)opt dual-optimum propulsive time, s (days)
vc characteristic speed, m/s
α power-system specific mass, kg/kW
ηt overall thruster power efficiency
ηt/α thruster parameter ratio, m2/s3
φ tankage mass fraction (tank/propellant mass ratio)
ζi single-stage spacecraft propellant mass fraction, [≡ (1 + φ)-1]
∆u vehicle velocity increment, m/s [also ∆V]

I. Introduction

In chemical rockets, high specific impulses have been the acceptable criterion of
desirability but electric propulsion thrusters have a considerably wider range specific
impulses to choose from. Furthermore, some electric thrusters may have too much
specific impulse for certain missions because the mass of their auxiliary electrical-power
equipment can be comparable or greater to that of the propellant, something which has
not been the case for chemical rockets. Theoretically, for every rocket mission there is an
optimum specific impulse (Refs. 1 and 2). In our approach, the yardstick for desirability
becomes a combination of the payload fraction together with the mission’s propulsive
time rather than an optimum specific impulse by itself. This is because both these factors
are usually an end result in the selection of rocket propulsion systems (mission time can
never be less than thrusting time). Reliability, size, cost and other design factors need
also be considered in the selection of a propulsion system but their consideration
normally follows thruster identification.

An ideal flight performance analysis for electric propulsion thrusters was published in
1959 by D. B. Langmuir in Ref. 3 which compactly represents single-stage missions with
electric thrusters operating in space. There are several caveats with this formulation,
such as needing to properly define a specific mass α in kW/kg (Ref. 2 uses the inverse of
this α calling it the specific power in W/kg) and a total thruster efficiency ηt (in Ref. 3 ηt
is implicit because it defines α using the kinetic power of the output jet). Given a mission
velocity increment ∆u (commonly labelled as ‘the ∆V requirement’) and rendering it non-
dimensional with a characteristic speed vc ≡ 2t pηt / α where tp is the propulsive time, we
can plot ∆u/vc against a dimensionless specific-impulse ratio Ispg0/vc (where g0 is a
constant) for various payload ratios mpl/m0. Equivalent versions of such a plot (shown in
Refs. 2 – 6) indicate that there is an “optimum” curve that connects the various peaks
thus depicting potentially desirable values of the specific impulse. However, such a plot
offers no guidance to values of any optimal payload ratio because, among other things,
the propulsive time remains undefined having been absorbed in the non-dimensional
representation. This has been our motivation behind the “dual optimum” concept
elaborated on Refs. 2 and 7; Ref. 2 states: “One approach is to look for some dual
optimum, namely, to seek the shortest burn time consistent with the highest payload mass
fraction of the flight vehicle.” Note that because for any chosen thruster we operate with
a fixed Isp, what the dual optimum identifies is the lowest value of the product (tpηt/α)
consistent with the highest mpl/m0. Then, using the thruster’s values of α and ηt we can
calculate the optimal propulsive time tp. Selecting thrusters at a fixed Isp and assuming no
throttling takes place has the additional advantage of circumventing effects of variations
of (ηt/α) with Isp (a condition addressed in Refs. 8, 9).

II. Dual-Optimum Approach

Reference 3 presents the pertinent electric propulsion equations in a convenient non-

dimensional form with variables of order one and a formulation which demonstrates
relevant peaks and enabling studies of optimum flight performance. For the specific
mass α to be constant the mass of the propulsive system’s ‘power plant’ must be directly
proportional to the electric power being utilized by the thruster, a value which depends on
the physical constituents of the thruster and the operating specific impulse; the thruster
efficiency which needs to be shown explicitly also depends on the Isp. Furthermore, the
analysis in Ref. 3 only identifies three components: the mass of the propellant, the mass
of the power plant, and the payload mass – this means that all other vehicle components
(such as guidance, control and communications equipment and other necessary
equipment) must accounted for as part of the ‘payload’. Solar cells and batteries which
may be shared with functions of the payload would be part of the mass of the power plant
and which may make it to be other than directly proportional on the electric power. In
addition to the thruster parameters α and ηt we need to introduce the thruster’s propellant
tankage fraction factor φ (Refs. 2, 9, 10) which represents the ratio of tank-mass to the
liquid or gaseous propellant mass and an item not accounted for in Ref. 3. Including this
factor, the equation that represents the curve connecting the peaks in graphs of ∆u/vc vs.
Ispg0/vc from Ref. 2 (Eq. (17-9)) can be written as
2
 I sp g0 
1+ ϕ +  
 vc  + I sp g 0 1 − e∆u / I sp g0  =
0 (1)
 I sp g0 
2
∆u  
2 
 vc 
Intuitively it is expected that for a fixed power input the highest optimum velocity
increment would correspond to the lowest payload capacity and vice versa. From a
suitable plot (such as given in Ref. 2 Fig. 17-3 or Ref. 4 Fig. 9-3 and shown later as Fig.
2) the “optimum” curve represented by Eq. (1) is seen to comprise a narrow span of
values, from ∆u/vc equal to zero with mpl/m0 ≈ 1.0 and Ispg0/vc ≈ 1.0, to about ∆u/vc equal
to 0.8 with mpl/m0 equal to zero and Ispg0/vc ≈ 0.5 – since neither of these extremes is a
practical operating condition we need to explore values between these extremes. A
suitable guess at an operating condition might be simply a point half way, or ∆u/vc ≈ 0.4
giving Ispg0/vc ≈ 0.8 and mpl/m0 ≈ 0.25. A more rigorous approach is to treat the equations
involved as probability distributions and look for a joint probability peak or a
simultaneous optimum for both ∆u/vc and mpl/m0 (Ref. 7, Fig. 5, shows a 3D plot of this
joint probability) and this better approach turns out to yield results close to the above
guesstimate. With such dual-optimum results we have an explicit means of defining an
optimum specific impulse for a given mission’s ∆u and thus the ability to identify one or
more thrusters in order to compare their payload ratio and thrusting time performances.

Having established that the product of ∆u/vc with mpl/m0 has a maximum as a function
of Ispg0/vc (Appendix B elaborates on a proof of this statement), the resulting maximum
point (or best condition) can now define all attributes needed for analyzing our design
parameters. Figure 1 shows results at the dual-optimum location as a function of tankage
fraction φ. As evident from this figure (for expected values) the φ-effect is negligibly
small on the dual-optimum payload ratio which remains around 0.46 and this value, in
itself attractive, may be assumed when locating optimal times in the examples that
follow. The effect of the tankage fraction φ on other aspects of a mission is considerably
more significant with noticeable effects on the lower limits of tp. Reference 2 (Fig. 4-3)
shows equivalent limitations on the ratio ∆u/Ispg0 as a function of propellant mass
fraction ζi which is related to φ for single-stage spacecraft.

.
Figure 1 Dual-optimum results as a function of tankage mass fraction φ. ∆u/Isp)optg0 is
independent of vc and hence independent of a thruster’s specific mass and efficiency.
Given ∆u, increasing values of φ decrease the resulting Isp)opt also affecting tp values.

Observing that the ratio ∆u/Isp)optg0 plotted in Fig. 1 is independent of vc, for any given
∆u we can directly calculate Isp)opt with the aid of Fig, 1 as a function of φ and thereby
inspect thrusters that may operate at the dual-optimal point for that mission. This curve
also reinforces the fact that a high ∆u needs a proportionally high Isp for optimal
operation. Once the Isp)opt is identified, the top curve in Fig. 1 can be used to find vc
which contains tp)opt and for a high Isp that propulsive time varies as the its square so
proportionately large transit times are optimal for high (∆u)s. Electrical thrusters in
common with other rocket propulsion systems operate at a fixed Isp, but commercially
available thrusters are unlikely to operate exactly at the dual-optimum point.
Nevertheless, we now we have a guide on the region of interest – this will be more
evident in the examples of Section IV.

Since the precise dual-optimum peak is likely to be too constraining, it is therefore

more appropriate to define a ‘neighborhood’ which includes values close to (but
necessarily somewhat under) the dual optimum actual peak. Figure 2 shows curves for φ
= 0.1 depicting a dual optimum region about 12 % below the actual peak (Ref. 2).
Figure 2 clearly shows that, as implied earlier, as the payload fraction increases the
dimensionless velocity increment decreases – each curve going through an optimum as a
function of the dimensionless specific impulse.
Figure 2 Payload mass fractions and related non-dimensional variables in a suitable
neighborhood around the dual optimum point for φ = 0.1. The triangular and rectangular
entries represent examples from Table 9.4 of Ref. 3 (because there φ = 0 the points fall
slightly to the left of the peaks).

III. Electric Thrusters

Electric thrusters operate at constant thrust but unlike their chemical counterparts deliver
relatively low thrust levels to keep the needed electric power within practical values
(because the ratio of electric power to thrust is directly proportional to the Isp).
Furthermore, most of them only function at very low internal pressures, all of which
makes them only operable in space and low gravity environments. Electric thrusters have
been increasingly used in space since the 1950’s in a large variety of missions. They
carry relatively low amounts of propellant which is expelled at high velocities. With the
availability of electrical power from solar and nuclear sources, a number of long duration
missions have been possible and because electric power can be shared with
communications and other equipment thrusters that utilize electric power in space have
become significantly more competitive than pure chemical propulsion.

A. Thruster Characteristics

For the purposes of our analysis, the parameters that characterize an electric thruster are
Isp, and ηt/α, and these are unique for each type of thruster. Electric thrusters have been
categorized as electrothermal, electrostatic, and electromagnetic (Refs. 2, 5 and 10).
Operational electrothermal thrusters such as the Resistojet and Arcjet have specific
impulses below 1,000 sec with (relatively) high values of the ratio of ηt/α. There are
several types of operational electrostatic thrusters where ion-engine types can have
specific impulses between 2,000 and 5,000 sec with moderately high values of ηt/α. The
operational electromagnetic thrusters include the pulsed plasma thruster (PPT) and the
magneto plasma dynamic thruster (MPD), and here specific impulses are around 1000 sec
with low values of the ratio ηt/α. The Hall thruster, considered to be a crosslink between
electrostatic and electromagnetic, has specific impulses between 1,500 and 2,000 sec with
attractive values of the ratio ηt/α.

While the magnitudes of ηt are solely dependent on the type of thruster (Refs. 2, 9-11)
and vary primarily with specific impulse, values α of also depend significantly on the
electric propulsion system’s power configuration for multi-thruster spacecraft together
with the complexity of the power processor unit itself. Since we use published values for
these parameters when comparing thrusters, these should be considered representative for
each type of thruster and not necessarily the most recent ‘state-of-the-art’.

B. Tankage Mass Fraction

Most electric thrusters use non-solid propellants and thus require tanking, metering and
other hardware which we assume to be proportional to the mass of the propellant. The
total added mass of such components is largely dependent on the type of propellant, the
nature of its storage (e.g., compressed gas or liquid), and on tanking arrangements in the
spacecraft. For the inert gases, the value of φ hovers around 0.1 and this will be used as
the default value in all our representations (Fig. 1 can be consulted for tankage fraction
effects on the dual-optima of other variables). The storage of liquids can require less
mass than that for gases unless they are highly cryogenic. The tankage fraction φ is
related to the single-stage chemical propellant mass fraction ζi, by ζi = (1 + φ)-1 (Ref. 2).

IV. Low-Thrust Orbit Transfer Calculations

In gravity-free, drag-free travel the total velocity increment (∆u) will define our mission
requirement. Moreover, because the Isp)opt is proportional to this total ∆u, to be of interest
electric propulsion Isps need to be greater than the chemical’s upper range which is below
600 sec (e.g., Refs. 1 and 12). Electric propulsion is thus best suited for missions where
∆u is greater than 2.0 km/s (the dual-optimum value corresponding to 600 sec). In the
examples below, the ∆u values used are only illustrative for the stated mission because
more accuracy depends on factors beyond the scope of our work (see Refs. 5, 13 and 14).
However, as we will see from our results, in long missions the operational thruster
inventory needs to be enhanced at the higher specific impulse end.

Because of their low thrust levels relative to chemical rockets, electric propulsion
applications have been restricted to satellite orbit maintenance and to in-space orbit
transfer maneuvers of spacecraft. Moreover, for orbit changes, only spiral outward
trajectories are feasible which increase the ∆u requirements and result in considerably
longer times than Hohman-ellipse and other nearly instantaneous ballistic impulsive-
maneuver transfers. In what follows we will examine the following one-way orbit
transfer examples from LEO: to GEO, to a low lunar orbit, and to a to Mars orbit. Our
analysis will yield payload mass fractions and propulsive times. Further definitions of
the payload itself would then allow the calculation of thrust level and electrical power
requirements, together with other mission related requirements. Because the value of α
depends on thruster type as well as on thruster configuration in multi-thruster units which
remains undefined, this will add to the uncertainty of our final time estimates. That
together with uncertainties in the ∆u’s necessary spiral-trajectories for the stated mission
renders our numbers as reasonable estimates only – especially useful for the comparison
of different thrusters’ performance. But the techniques presented here can easily be
refined to evaluate actual thrusters in more precisely defined missions.

The relevant equation for the payload ratio from Ref. 3 is given below with the tankage
fraction φ added and showing the specific mass α and efficiency ηt explicitly (see Ref. 2).
−∆u
   
mpl  ( I sp g 0 ) 2   ( I sp g 0 ) 2 
= e
I sp g 0
1 + ϕ +  − ϕ +  (2)
m0  2t pηt   2t pηt 
 α   α 
Observing that the once an electric thruster with stipulated values of ηt, α and Isp is
chosen, the only unspecified variable for the given mission’s ∆u is tp, we calculate with
Eq. (2) the appropriateness of one or more thrusters near any condition deemed optimal.
We may then plot mpl/m0 against tp in the vicinity of such condition more meaningfully
than in Figure 2. Another advantage of working with a fixed Isp for each identified
thruster is that we can use manufacturers’ published values of α and ηt without concern as
to how they may vary with specific impulse.

Next, we will work several examples to ascertain thrusting times applicable to the given
mission and the chosen type of thrusters. Since we will assume φ ≈ 0.1 in most of our
examples we can write the dual optimum point corresponding relations as
2
 m pl   I sp )opt g0  α 2 α
I sp )opt =
0.3023∆u   = 0.4568 t p )opt =
  5.5105 ( u )
=∆ (3)
 m0 opt  0.8933  2η t ηt

A. ∆u = 4.7 km/s and other LEO to GEO Orbit Transfer Estimates

Orbit raising from LEO to GEO is a common task for communication satellites. The
necessary spiral trajectory requires larger ‘∆Vs’ than the Hohmann transfer ellipse and
takes longer. A representative estimate for this mission is ∆u = 4.7 km/s, and here we are
typically requiring one-way transfers. From our dual-optimum results in Fig. 1, Isp)opt =
1420.8 sec and tp)opt = 1.409(α/ηt) in days, where α is in kg/kW and with φ = 0.1 as
representative of all thrusters of interest. Looking at the thruster inventory we find that
the Arcjet, the Hall thruster, and the Ion thruster bracket a specific impulse range near the
dual-optimum condition. Table 1 shows relevant thruster parameters (Refs. 2 and 10).
The Hall and Ion thrusters use xenon for the propellant whereas the Arcjet uses NH3.

Table 1 Thruster parameters for use with ∆u = 4.7 km/s

Arcjet (NH3) Hall (XRS) Ion (NSTAR)
Isp (sec) 800 1983 2700
α (kg/kW) 3.34 2.73 3.56
ηt 0.32 0.57 0.50
φ 0.10 0.12 0.12
 With the parameters shown in Table 1, Eq. (2) can now be plotted in terms of the
propulsive time for each thruster in this mission. This plot is shown in Fig. 3 where tp is
in days and the payload fraction is dimensionless. With the highest payload ratio in the
range of propulsive times shown, the Hall thruster will always be have the smallest m0
within the time window shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 3 Orbit transfer payload fraction from LEO to GEO with ∆u = 4.7 km/s for Hall,
Ion and Arcjet types electric thrusters.

The reasons that the Hall thruster is superior to the other two can be attributed to its
being closest to the dual optimum and to its relatively higher value of the ratio (ηt/α). For
the 3 thrusters selected, dual-optimal payload ratios (0.46) range between about 7 and 30
days. At the left-end of Figure 3 the Arcjet compares well with the Hall at the lower tps
but at much reduced payload ratios, and at the right-end the Ion compares well with the
Hall, approaching comparable payload ratios but at longer tps.

Reference 9 calculates thrusting times for a variety of orbit transfer conditions. In Fig.
5 of Ref. 9, a minimum round-trip time of 579 days is indicated for a ∆u = 6 km/s (each
way) with Isp = 3,000 sec with an argon ion thruster (φ = 0.05, ηt = 0.435, and α = 40
kg/kW). The payload fraction for the first leg of the trip is mpl/m0 = 0.519 and the
spacecraft returns without the payload under the same operating conditions. In order to
apply Eq. (2) with argon and calculate the one-way trip we need to use ηt/α ≈ 7.3 m2/s3
(which is somewhat under the ratio given in Ref. 9) and this gives a return trip of 157
days – or a one-way loaded trip of 422 days. Using Fig. 1 with φ = 0.05, our dual-
optimum one-way results for 6 km/s and with 7.3 m2/s3 are as follows: Isp)opt = 1,671.3
sec, mpl/m0)opt = 0.46, and tp)opt = 410 days. Note that even at 3,000 sec specific impulse
an argon ion thruster would be quite inefficient and should be replaced with a xenon-
electrostatic or a Hall thruster for more attractive ηt/α ratios.

Reference 15 presents an analysis for a low thrust spacecraft transfer from LEO to
GEO. They assume an electric propulsion unit with a magnet-plasma-dynamic (MPD)
thruster with an Isp = 2,000 sec and φ = 0.05 for argon tankage. The transit time indicated
is 270 days to boost mpl/m0 = 0. 556 by ∆u = 6.6 km/s. In order to apply Eq. (2) we use
these data to determine that ηt/α = 16.31 m2/s3, which compares well with that the value
given in Ref. 15 (ηt/α ≈ 20 m2/s3). Using Fig. 1 with φ = 0.05 and ηt/α = 16.31 m2/s3value
to solve with Eq. (2), our dual-optimum condition becomes Isp)opt = 1,838 sec, and other
dual-optimum results become mpl/m0)opt = 0.46 at tp)opt = 160 days. We may surmise that
our dual-optimum results are as attractive as those from the more complicated analysis of
Ref. 15 for equal MPD-thruster performances.

Reference 16 presents one “mission case study” for achieving ∆u of 6,413.3 m/s with a
100-kW ion thruster. Among the parameters given (Table 10.7 of Ref. 16) are: mpl/m0 =
0.4534, Isp = 2,000 sec, and ηt/α = 2.785 yielding a travel time is 83.2 days but a value
that does not include any tankage mass fraction – when we include φ == 0.1 for xenon in
Eq. (2) the travel time becomes 93 days. The dual-optimum results for a velocity
increment of 6,413.3 m/s with ηt/α = 2.785 m2/s3 are as follows: Isp)opt = 1,838.8 sec, and
other dual-optimum values become mpl/m0)opt = 0.46 at tp)opt = 95 days. These results
compare very favorably.

B. ∆u = 8 km/s as an Estimate for LEO to a Low Lunar Orbit Transfer

The ‘∆V’ required to transfer a spacecraft from LEO to a low lunar orbit (or LLO) has
been hard to define because it remains as an unsolved three-body problem, involving the
earth, sun and moon. Here, we will take ∆u = 8 km/s as a representative number for such
a mission and proceed with our estimates. From our dual optimum results in Fig. 1, Isp)opt
= 2,418.4 sec and tp)opt = 4.082(α /ηt) in days, where α is in kg/kW and assuming that φ =
0.1 is representative of the thrusters of interest. After looking at the thruster inventory,
we find that the Hall thruster, the XIPS-Ion thruster, and the European RIT-2X Ion
thruster (Ref. 17) have specific impulses that span the neighborhood around the dual-
optimal condition. Table 2 shows relevant thruster parameters and Figure 4 the resulting
calculations. All here thrusters use xenon for the propellant.

Table 2 Thruster parameters for use with ∆u = 8 km/s

Hall (XRS) Ion (XIPS) RIT-2X
Isp (sec) 1983 2700 3400
α (kg/kW) 2.73 3.56 4.54
ηt 0.57 0.50 0.4
φ 0.12 0.12 0.12
Figure 4 Orbit transfer payload fraction from LEO to to a low Lunar orbit with ∆u = 8
km/s for 3 electric thrusters. Ion (XIPS), Hall, Ion (RIT-2X).

The reason that the Ion thruster is somewhat better than the other two can in part be
attributed to its being closest to the dual optimum. Both XIPS and RIT-2X accelerate
xenon ions electrostatically but the former generates ions in a direct-current discharge the
latter uses radio-frequency power and this renders it with lower values of the ratio (ηt/α).
For the 3 thrusters selected, dual-optimal times range between 20 and 47 days. At the
left-end of Figure 3 the Hall thruster compares well with the Ion thruster with nearly
equal payload fractions at 30 days. Beyond 50 days, both the RIT-2X and Ion thruster
performance show higher payload ratios than the dual-optimum but at considerably
longer tps. Moreover, the RIT-2X is not attractive below 80 days unless its value of the
ratio (ηt/α) is improved or it can be operated at a lower Isp

Reference 18 presents an orbit-change calculation from LEO to lunar orbits focusing

on low-thrust trajectories. Their results assume a thrust-to-weight ratio of 4.4x10-5 with
∆u = 7.69 km/s. They aim to “represent a maximum payload optimization problem with
vehicle parameters (constant thrust magnitude and mass flow rate) as design variables
and the end time fixed at 200 days”. From their data and, we may surmise the propellant
initial mass fraction to be 0.06 and that the Isp = 12,771 sec. Using ηt/α = 50 m2/s3 to
represent an early nuclear ion propelled spacecraft with φ = 0.1 in Eq. 2, we can compare
the results of Ref. 18 with the dual-optimum Isp)opt = 2,325 sec – at 200 days their mpl/m0
= 0.4 whereas using a more optimal Isp, mpl/m0 = 0.6. Moreover, at 200 days the two
payload fractions would become equal (mpl/m0 = 0.64) under the same Isps but with a
higher ratio, ηt/α = 94 m2/s3, one which is within the present state of the art for electric
thrusters. The electric thruster is not identified in Ref.18.
C. ∆u = 16 km/s as an Estimate for a LEO to a Mars Orbit Transfer

A representative estimate for this mission is ∆u = 16 km/s, and here we are only
considering a one-way trip to a Mars orbit. From our dual-optimum results in Fig. 1
Isp)opt = 4,836.8 sec and tp)opt = 16.328(α /ηt) in days, where α is in kg/kW and assuming
that φ = 0.1 is going to be representative of all thrusters of interest. Looking at the
thruster inventory we find that the Ion thruster, the RIT-2X thruster, and the VASIMR
cover a specific impulse range near the dual-optimal condition. Table 3 shows relevant
thruster parameters (Refs. 2, 17, and 19) and Figure 5 the resulting calculations. The Ion
and RIT-2X thrusters use xenon for the propellant whereas the VASIMR (X-200) (Ref.
19) uses argon and is considered to be an electrothermal thruster because it accelerates a
plasma through a supersonic electromagnetically-configured nozzle. Thruster inventory
is lacking at these higher specific impulse ranges.

Ion (XIPS) RIT-2X VASIMR (Ar)

Isp (sec) 3550 3400 5000
α (kg/kW) 3.56 4.54 10
ηt 0.50 0.4 0.65
φ 0.12 0.12 0.10
Table 3

Even though the VASIMR is closest to the dual-optimum specific impulse it is

outperformed by both XIPS and RIT-2X in the time window shown because they have
the higher values of the ratio (ηt/α). For the 3 thrusters selected, dual-optimal times range
between 116 and 250 days. At the right-end of Figure 5 the VASIMR thruster compares
well with the RIT-2X thruster with equal payload fractions at 260 days near the dual-
optimum payload fraction value. The Ion thruster performance appears somewhat better
than the others at all tps.
Figure 5 Orbit transfer payload fraction from LEO to a Mars orbit with ∆u = 16 km/s for
3 electric thrusters, Ion (XIPS), Ion (RIT-2X), and the VASIMR.

Stuhlinger in Ref. 20 calculates a round trip to Mars with an early version of an Ion
engine. His results can be summarized as 401 days to get from earth from earth to Mars
with mpl/m0 = 0.2055 at an Isp = 8,564 sec. In order to use Eq. (2) we may surmise that
for each way ∆u = 27 km/s and ηt/α = 54 m2/s3 (with φ = 0). The dual-optimum results
(using ∆u = 27 km/s, ηt/α = 54 m2/s3, and after introducing φ = 0.1 into Eq.2) are very
similar at 400 days to Ref. 20. In this situation, where Isp)opt = 8,162 sec, mpl/m0)opt =
0.46 and tp)opt = 875 days, our approach and that of Ref. 20 also compare favorably.

V. Conclusions

The results depicted in Figs. 3, 4, and 5 can only be as good as the accuracy of the input
parameters and the validity of Eq.2. We have used ∆u values only judged to be
representative of the identified mission in these examples. Similarly, values of ηt/α
which directly affect the resulting tps are considered typical for the various thrusters
examined. Our results indicate that a spacecraft using electric propulsion can deliver
mpl/m0 ≈ 0.5 from LEO to GEO in as little as 9 days, to a Lunar orbit in about 30 days,
and to a Mars orbit in about 210 days. Figure 3 indicates that the Hall thruster is superior
to the other two in the time-window displayed and it might have been purposely so
designed. Fig. 4 shows no clear thruster superiority except at the low tp-end where the
Hall thruster seems somewhat better that the ion thrusters. In Figure 5 both ion thrusters
appear better at the low tp-end; the VASIMR catches up the high tp-end. While the
VASIMR is envisaged to be more scalable than ion thrusters toward the high overall
thrust levels that will be needed in manned missions to Mars, the payload fraction limit
that appears in Fig. 5 seem be quite restrictive for a one-way mission under 100 days
(Ref. 21 discusses ‘health and safety goals’ limits to mission travel times in terms of the
exposure of sensitive cargo to radiation and to very low gravity environments).
Comparisons with 5 other optimal approach results are seen to be favorable to the dual-
optimum methodology both for its ease of application and its reasonable results.

Presently, the inventory of electric thrusters appears to be adequate for specific

impulses under 3000 sec, fair between 3000 and 5000, but lacking for values over 5,000
sec. This void should stimulate R & D efforts because longer missions (i.e., to Mars and
beyond) optimize at the higher values of the specific impulse. References 5, 9 and 22
posit that an argon dc ion thruster operating at 6,000 sec and above can have thruster
efficiencies close to present xenon designs; Ref. 22 also indicates various advantages of
using argon as propellant and suggests that a power system’s specific mass magnitude
could be improved by using “direct drives” and more recent technologies. Space-charge
limited currents in ion thrusters are independent of ion mass so that the thrust in argon ion
engines can be comparable xenon as well. Having a simple methodology that, given a
mission, directly defines optimum thruster parameters should therefore be helpful to
future designs.
 For any given mission with electric propulsion, the design procedure outlined in
Appendix A identifies a range of desirable operating conditions worthy of further
scrutiny. The work in Ref. 3 has been extended to include the tankage mass fraction
(which has a noticeable effect on the optimum and on mission limiting values) and this
makes Eq. 2 more realistic, and given only ∆u and φ we can easily calculate a dual-
optimum condition which defines the Isp)opt. For more practicality, we work with an Isp-
spread which brackets operating conditions around the dual optimum. This allows us to
pick and to compare several thrusters in existing inventories. The performance of such
thrusters as in Figs. 3, 4 and 5 can be examined and additional discriminators can be
introduced refining the operating conditions (i.e., do we need more payload fraction or
shorter thrusting times). These figures also can serve to identify and guide present
thruster research goals for improving hardware for any mission of common interest.
After the desired payload is given, we can proceed to calculate the optimal conditions in
terms of a resulting overall spacecraft mass and thrust time, and proceed to calculate total
thrust, power requirements, and then thruster/power-module/tankage configurations.
Note that by operating at a fixed specific impulse the ratio ηt/α also remains fixed (except
for any deleterious aging of the thrusters during long duration missions).

As presented, our optimization scheme generates answers in terms of the payload ratio
and thruster characteristic speed for the mission in a relatively straightforward way,
information which should be more valuable to the designer than the specific impulse
itself. With our orbit-change examples, we have strived to show that for electric
propulsion systems the indices of desirability can be an optimally high payload mass
fraction consistent with an optimally low propulsive time. Moreover, these examples
clearly show that manufacturer’s specifications for a thruster’s specific mass and
efficiency noticeably affect any comparison between thrusters in addition to how close
they operate to the dual-optimum specific impulse-point, and that the specific impulse by
itself cannot be the sole index of desirability.

References

1. A. Jaumotte, in M. Barrere, et al, Rocket Propulsion (Chapter 1), Elsevier Publishing

Company, Amsterdam, 1960.
2. Sutton, G. P. and Biblarz, O., Rocket Propulsion Elements, 9th Edition, John Wiley
and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2017.
3. Langmuir, D. B., “Low-Thrust Flight: Constant Exhaust Velocity in Field-Free Space”
(Chapter 9), Space Technology, H. Seifert (Ed.), John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1959.
4. P. J. Turchi in Humble, G. N. Henry and W. J. Larson, Space Propulsion Analysis and
Design (Chapter 9), McGraw-Hill, New York, 1995.
5. Hill, P. G. and Peterson C. R., Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Propulsion
(Chapter 10), Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1992
6. D. L. Turcotte, Space propulsion (Chapter 1), Blaisdell Publishing Company, New
York, 1965.
7. De Bellis, J. J., “Optimization Procedure for Electric Propulsion Engines”, MS Thesis,
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, 1999.
8. Kurtz, M. A., et al, “Optimization of Electric Propulsion Systems Considering Specific
Power as a Function of Specific Impulse”, J. Propulsion and Power, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1988.
9. Jones, R. M., “Comparison of Potential Electric Propulsion Systems for Orbital
Transfer”, J. Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 24, No.1, Jan-Feb 1984.
10. Martinez-Sanchez, M. and Pollard, J. E., Spacecraft Electric Propulsion – An
Overview”, J. Propulsion and Power, Vol. 14, No. 5, Sept-Oct 1998.
11. D. M. Goebel and I. Katz, Fundamentals of Electric Propulsion – Ion and Hall
Thrusters, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2008
12. C. D. Brown, Spacecraft Propulsion, AIAA Education Series, Washington, DC,
1996.
13. Wiesel, W. E., Spacecraft Dynamics (Chapter 3), 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, Boston,
MA, 1989.
14. J. E. Prussing and B. A. Conway, Orbital Mechanics (Chapter 8), Oxford University
Press, 2013.
15. E. Y. Choueiri, A. J. Kelly, and R.G. Jahn, “Mass Savings Domain of Plasma
Propulsion for LEO to GEO Transfer”, J. Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 30, No.6, Dec
1993.
16. D. Baker in Humble, G. N. Henry and W. J. Larson, Space Propulsion Analysis and
Design (Chapter 10), McGraw-Hill, New York, 1995.
17. H. J. Leiter, et al, “Six Decades of Thrust – The Ariane Group Radiofrequency Ion
Thrusters and System Family”, IEPC-2017-027, 35th International Electric Propulsion
Conference, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 2017.
18. C. A. Kluever and B. L. Pierson, "Vehicle-and-Trajectory Optimization of Nuclear
Electric Spacecraft for Lunar Missions," J. Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 32, No. 1,
1995, pp. 126-132.
19. B. W. Longmier, et al, “Improved Efficiency and Throttling Range of the VX-200
Magnetoplasma Thruster”, J. Propulsion and Power, Vol. 30, No 1 (2014), pp 123-132.
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B34801
20. E. Stuhlinger, “Flight Path of an Ion-Propelled Spaceship”, Jet Propulsion, Vol 27,
1957.
21. A. Hadhazy, “The Perilous Road to Mars”, Aerospace America, Vol. 66, No. 10,
November 2018.
22. O. Biblarz and J. O. Sinibaldi, “Study of DC Ion Thrusters with Argon Propellants”,
JPC AIAA 2006-4670, Sacramento, CA 2006.
23. B. Fraeijs de Veubeke, in M. Barrere, et al, Rocket Propulsion (Chapters 11 and 12),
Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1960.

APPENDIX A Procedure for choosing thrusters at or near the dual-optimum state

Because we are looking for the highest payload fraction consistent with the shortest travel
time to some given destination, this analysis is restricted to one-way missions. The
operating mode is exclusively constant low thrust (meaning constant specific impulse and
propellant mass flow rate) and operation in a space environment (meaning negligible
background pressures and gravity). The design ∆V needs to be the sum of all multistep
increments required to reach the spacecraft’s destination, and fuel consumption during
start-ups and shut-downs together with their time increments are assumed negligible and
are not accounted for. Also, maneuvers relating to end-of-mission requirements would
need to be separately analyzed. Our results will therefore reflect minimum propellant
requirements together with minimum travel times (but the major contributors).

1. Identify ∆u and calculate first Isp)opt and then tp)opt (s) assuming φ = 0.1 as follows:
Isp)opt (sec) = 0.3023(∆u (m/s))
If there is a throttleable thruster operable at the dual optimum Isp with ηt/α > 50 m2/s3
and if a payload faction mpl/m0 ≈ 0.46 is satisfactory – skip Step 2 provided the thrusting
time is also satisfactory. This action would also apply for thrusters that can be designed
to operate at the above-found Isp)opt.
Thrusting time: tp)opt (s) = 5.5105(∆u [m/s])2(α/ηt [s3/m2])
Note that because ηt/α can vary by a factor of 10 among the various thruster types, the
minimum propulsive time may result from a thruster only near the optimum Isp but one
with the highest value of ηt/α available (so that Step 2 is always worthwhile).

2. Looking at the available thruster inventory find a set that can operate in the region
represented in Fig.2 or, equivalently, look for Isps around to the dual optimum using:
0.18(∆u [m/s]) < Isp (sec) < 0.51(∆u [m/s])
Pick thrusters within this range, the more the better. Using manufacturer’s values of
Isp, ηt and α, apply Eq. (2) and plot curves as in Figs. 3 – 5 to compare their performance.
The plotted information on payload fraction vs. propulsive time will quantify and make
apparent the suitability of each thruster being examined.

3. Select one or more of the thrusters analyzed in Step 2. Identify φ based on the actual
propellant being used and as necessary, using Fig, 1, modify the dual optimum values in
Part 1. Modifications to the range of Isps from Step 2 can ordinarily be ignored because
the use of Eq. (2) will always provide actual values of payload fraction vs. thrusting time.

4. Identify the payload and calculate the initial mass of the vehicle for each selected
thruster from values of mpl/m0. Now you can calculate the ideal thrust and electric power
that will be needed for the mission from the relevant equations (e.g., see Ref. 2). This,
together with other manufacturer’s thruster information, will give the number of thruster
units required for each type of thruster and lead to tank configuration options, component
sizes, and power supply capacities. Review the value of φ and α used because they will
somewhat depend on engine-module configuration(s) – modify these parameters and
recalculating with Eq. (2) replot propellant mass fraction vs. propulsive time.

5. Calculate size, overall mass, and trip time (which typically exceeds thrusting time);
these together with hardware reliability, cost limitations, etc., will represent relevant
constraints on the mission design. Use these results to pare down the number of thrusters
selected. As necessary, further ITERATE.

APPENDIX B Graphical Proof of the Dual-Optimum Hypothesis

In rocket propulsion the concept of an “optimum” has different meanings (e.g., Refs. 2
and 23) but in this work we focus on missions under continuous, low-thrust trajectories in
gravity-free, drag-free space where an overall but fixed change of velocity can be
specified within the formulation of Eq. (2). Similar to Ref. 16 but unlike the optima
discussed in Refs. 4, 9 and 15, our aim is to identify thruster operating conditions which
are at or near to the highest vehicle payload fraction which is consistent with lowest orbit
transfer propulsive time (or, for a specified payload, the minimum overall mass consistent
with the minimum transfer time). As evident from Fig. 2, two parameters ∆u/vc and
mpl/m0 must be optimized together (vc contains tp as well as the thruster’s ηt/α). Figure B1
is a version of Fig.2 at the dual optimum point mpl/m0)opt = 0.4568. Here the
dimensionless variables peak at ∆u/vc = 0.3018 and Ispg0/vc = 0.8933 as anticipated.

Figure B1 Nondimensional velocity increment vs. nondimensional specific impulse at the

dual-optimum payload ratio with φ = 0.1. Note that the peak of this curve reflects the
values given in Eq. 3. Actual magnitudes of ∆u and Isp scale as tp1/2.

Another way to visualize the dual-optimum condition is to plot Fig. B2 and observe
that in this expanded region spanning (0 < (tpηt/α) < 4x109 m2/s2) there is a “knee” in the
curve of mpl/m0 vs. (tpηt/α), where going toward smaller propulsive times rapidly
diminishes the payload ratio and going toward longer propulsive times rapidly saturates
the payload ratio. Here we use an arbitrary Isp)opt = 3,000 sec which corresponds to a ∆u
= 9,923.8 m/s mission. The curves are for φ = 0.1 and assume a fixed but unspecified
thruster’s (ηt/α). Note in Fig. B2 that there exists a value of (tpηt/α) where the payload
fraction is zero representing the smallest propulsive time, as well as a levelling-off value
with increasing (tpηt/α) which would represent a limiting payload ratio at large propulsive
times. The horizontal scale is multiplied by 109 to have units of m2/s2.
Figure B2 Payload fraction and its slope for ∆u = 9,923.8 m/s and φ = 0.1. The dual-
optimum specific impulse here is Isp)opt = 3,000 sec. To the left of the dual-optimum
point the payload ratio rapidly diminishes and to the right it rapidly saturates (as the slope
approaches zero). Values of the abscissa below 0.2x109 m2/s2 are not accessible and
neither are payload fractions above 0.7.

Figures 3, 4 and 5 depict the payload fraction around dual-optimum times but no
minima are discernable in those figures. We continue here using the values Isp)opt = 3,000
sec, ∆u = 9,923.8 m/s, and φ = 0.1. From Eqs. (3), the dual optimum result containing
the thrusting time becomes [tp)opt ηt/α] = 0.5427x109 m2/s2 ( and dual-optimum propulsive
times can then be found once a thruster is identified). As shown in Fig. B3, in a
restricted region around the dual optimum specific impulse, the payload fraction is the
highest when the propulsive “time” is at the optimally lowest value for this mission
compared to any other specific impulse (with similar values of ηt/α).
Figure B3 Payload fractions at the dual-optimum value of (tpηt/α) for ∆u = 9,923.8 m/s
and φ = 0.1. Note that the maximum payload fraction is at 3,000 sec.

Finally, in actual designs, thrusters are also be subject to other constraints, ones
beyond our analysis, so having a range of desirable Isps is always useful – for ∆u =
9,923.8 m/s, 10 % values below the dual-optimum point cover a span of specific impulse
from about 1,800 sec to 5,000 sec. Moreover, beyond helping identify likely thruster
candidates, the dual optimum itself can be a design goal for those thrusters that can be
throttled or purposely manufactured to operate at a known ∆u. In all cases, the ratio ηt/α
needs to be as high as the state-of-the-art permits because higher ratios yield smaller
necessary tps (e.g., a doubling of this ratio may cut thrusting times by half) and this is
undoubtedly another incentive for mission inputs in the design stages of the hardware.