You are on page 1of 68

Analysis of Current Propulsion Technologies for Interplanetary Transit with High Mass Payloads

Paul T. Crews Jr.

May 1, 2013

Abstract Propulsion systems for the interplanetary transit of high mass payloads are vital to research, exploration, and eventual habitation of local solar bodies and accompanying phenomenon. This paper outlines and analyzes both current and developing propulsion technologies, and assesses their viability in delivering large payloads for varying extraterrestrial mission requirements. Two propulsion system categories are segmented within this paper, consisting of electric and nuclear propulsion technologies. An additional third section briefly outlines alternative propulsion methods not included, and assesses their viability as developing technologies. Within each of the aforementioned categories, this paper comparatively analyzes the differing propulsion systems and recommends a technology considered most viable based upon current functionality, mission operability, and possibility for future development and expansion. Using the above criteria for the primary categories, the VASIMR electric propulsion thruster and NPP fusion-based rocket thruster propulsion systems are recommended as proposed propulsion methods. The final aspect of this analysis details and compares the beneficial and detracting factors for each system, and proposes possible areas for continuing research and development. This report is also demonstrated on a webpage located at the URL: http://currentpropulsionsystems.weebly.com/. Full compatibility with the Chrome internet browser is tested; compatibility with Internet Explorer above version 10 is expected and Firefox should additionally be compatible.

Report Objectives As indicated by the title of the report, the following analysis seeks to examine and assess varying current and developing propulsion technologies, and their viability in propelling high mass payloads over long distances. Several categories and subcategories are outlined, and recommendations for each system are concluded. This report analyzes only current and near future technologies, and unforeseen developments or other changes in propulsion technology are not accounted for. A stated purpose of investigatory analysis underscores this analysis, serving to assess the current state of viability for assessed propulsion technologies. Types of Propulsion Technologies Analyzed This report includes several developed and emerging propulsion technologies for comparative analysis across several differing categories. Each propulsion system outlined, however, meets two application and functional requirements: Primarily, the specified propulsion system is capable of transporting high-mass cargo, and secondly, interplanetary transit time is within reasonable limits. Due to these constraints, several propulsion types are not analyzed in the following report, including chemical rocket engines. An extremely low Specific Impulse (Isp) and a maximum velocity of 10 kilometers per second for a single stage rocket indicates unreasonable interplanetary transit times (Goodman, 1997). Additionally, multiple theoretical propulsion systems are not analyzed, as impracticality or the use of unproven concepts provide negligible current or near future applicability, and so do not meet the objective of this report. Finally, propulsion systems that are otherwise ineffective or underdeveloped are not included within this paper, due to lack of experimental data or alternative research for an accurate, comparative analysis.

Electric Propulsion Systems As prefaced in the previous section, this report only includes propulsion systems pertaining to the transportation of high mass cargo over long distances; while many types of electric propulsion exist, this report restricts the methods discussed to current, viable, or developing electric propulsion systems. Currently a prime technology for research, development, and current implementation, electric propulsion is a highly tested and highly versatile technology. Beginning development at NASA in the 1950s, electric propulsion has been used on many satellites, orbiters, and other systems (NASA, 2004). Electric propulsion functions through creating, accelerating, and expelling particles, primarily through the use of electricity. Advantageous for traversing interplanetary distances over a long duration, these thrusters are highly efficient, high velocity propulsion systems (European Space Agency, 2004). Conversely, electric systems typically have low thrust to mass ratios, minimizing the ability for the spacecraft to accelerate within a short timeframe (European Space Agency, 2004). Consisting of electrostatic, electromagnetic, and electrothermal subcategories, this paper further details, analyses, and contrasts the various electric ion propulsion systems within the subsequent sections. Electric Propulsion Systems: Electrostatic Thrusters Electrostatic propulsion thrusters rely upon electric fields for accelerating and expelling ions to produce thrust and propel the spacecraft (European Space Agency, 2004). The production of ions for acceleration is achieved through several differing means, including the conventional electron bombardment method or the electron cyclotron resonance method, which electrically charges atoms from an onboard fuel supply (NASA, 2004). This fuel supply is an inert gas, often

xenon or krypton, which is injected into the ionization chamber then expelled for propulsion (NASA, 2004). Electrostatic thrusters provide relatively large Isp values, ranging from 1,000 to approximately 10,000, and also have relatively high efficiencies ranging between 55% - 98% (Jordan, 2000). While electrostatic thrusters produce minimal thrust relative to alternative propulsion methods, the various implementations of this technology provide advantages not offered by other propulsion methods. Several specific electromagnetic propulsion methods are detailed in the subsequent paragraphs. Gridded electrostatic ion thrusters, also called gridded electron ion bombardment thrusters, use the electron bombardment technique to produce ions from the inert injected gas (Jordan, 2000). As depicted in Figure 1, the electrons emitted from within the chamber collide with the inert gas (denoted a neutral propellant atom), and produce two electrons and a positive ion. Additionally, a magnetic field surrounding the collision chamber increases ionization efficiency (Ward, 2000), while the positive ions are accelerated through a positive and a negative charged grid to propel the spacecraft; the electrostatically charged grids have a large voltage discrepancy, creating a voltage inequality causing the positive ions to be expelled from the spacecraft (European Space Agency, 2004; Jordan, 2000). This stream of positive ions is then electrically neutralized by an external electron beam, as shown in Figure 2, which eliminates both the spacecrafts accumulation of a net positive charge, possibly leading to damage, and prevents the internal potential of the ion stream from eliminating the generated thrust (European Space Agency, 2004). As shown in Table 1, this propulsion method provides an extremely high expected Isp, a relatively large maximum thrust level of .5 N, and a high efficiency rage between 80% - 95% (Jordan, 2000). However, structural instability and contamination risk detract from the overall viability of this propulsion system (Jordan, 2000). Overall, the combination of

extensive testing and implementation, expansive opportunity for development, and inherent longevity of the ion bombardment propulsion system contribute to its operability and functionality in meeting the stated objectives of this paper. A second type of electrostatic propulsion system is the Hall Effect thruster. Considered as both electrostatic and electromagnetic propulsion systems (European Space Agency, 2004), Hall Effect thrusters contain both a radial magnetic field and an axial electric current, which interact to provide propulsion to the system (Jahn & Choueiri, 2002). As shown in Figure 3, an internal electromagnet is surrounded by several external electromagnets, with an internal propulsion chamber located between them, generating the radial magnetic field across said chamber (European Space Agency, 2004; Jordan, 2000). The disc-shaped internal chamber is closed on the propellant inlet side, while the opposite side is exposed for propellant ejection (European Space Agency, 2004). Several propellant feeds are located on the closed side, coupled with anodes that serve to generate the electric field necessary for propulsion; the inlets inject heavy gasses, typically xenon, into the internal chamber for ionization, acceleration, and expulsion (Jahn & Choueiri, 2002). A cross section of the Hall Effect thruster is depicted in Figure 4 showing the neutral gas feed into the thruster, the location and vector of the electric and magnetic fields, and the location of the electromagnets surrounding the propellant chamber. An anode, located at the neutral gas feed, assists in the generation of the electric field; accompanied by the external cathode on the opposite side, a flow of elections and a small amount of the propellant gas (approximately 5% of the total feed amount) originate from the cathode, which then travel to the plasma exhaust flow (European Space Agency, 2004; Jahn & Choueiri, 2002). Both the neutral gas and a percentage of electrons emitted by the cathode follow the plasma flow away from the thruster, and neutralize the charged stream; however, some electrons from the

cathode traverse the thruster entrance and return to the internal propellant chamber (Prado, n.d.; European Space Agency, 2004). This electric current between the anode and cathode creates the electric field, while the aforementioned electromagnets create the magnetic field. From the combination of magnetic and electric fields arises the Hall Effect, the basic principle upon which the thruster operates; these two fields interact with the electrons in the internal propellant chamber, forcing them to move perpendicularly to both, and rotate radially around the central electromagnet (European Space Agency, 2004). This accumulation of electrons around a fixed location generates a negative net charge towards the end of the chamber, attracting the positive ions and expelling them for propulsion (European Space Agency, 2004). Drifting electrons, slowly escaping their radial rotation, interact with the neutral ions to produce two electrons and a positively charged ion, which then accelerates towards the large negative charge of the accumulated electrons (European Space Agency, 2004). To prevent electrical shorting with electrons interacting with the anode in large numbers, the radial magnetic field is within set parameters and variables (European Space Agency, 2004). While the above describes the basic operation of all Hall Effect propulsion systems, two different types of thrusters provide differing capabilities; the Stationary Plasma Thruster (SPT) and the Thruster with Anode Layer (TAL). The SPT type contains a longer acceleration zone for the charged ions, but exposure of the chamber walls to continual electron bombardment requires additional electron shielding (European Space Agency, 2004). However, in comparisons to the TAL, the SPT has markedly increased rates of corrosion, but has a more continuous variation in plasma potential within the electric field (European Space Agency, 2004). An example of the SPT is shown in Figure 5. The TALs anode is located closer to the radial magnetic field, and so has a shorter acceleration distance when compared to the SPT. However, this significantly decreases the corrosive effects

of continual electron bombardment, but provides for a discontinuous jump in plasma potential due to the smaller distance between the magnetic field and the anode (European Space Agency, 2004). Additionally, the TAL system is depicted in Figure 6. Finally, the theoretical performance of Hall Effect thrusters, as noted in Table 1, is between 1,500 and 2,500 Isp and operates within 40% - 60% efficiency, indicating a relatively moderate to poor comparative performance with other electrostatic propulsion systems; yet, the Hall Effect thruster also has a relatively high projected thrust level of <220 mN, indicating a significant advantage over other electric propulsion systems (Jordan, 2000). In summation, the Hall Effect thruster system creates propulsion using magnetic and electric fields, for a moderate comparative performance in Isp and efficiency categories, but offers a relatively good thrust performance. This indicates the significant advantages and overall desirability of this thruster in terms of operational performance over other types of electrostatic thrusters. Several electrostatic propulsion technologies are deemed either underdeveloped or otherwise unviable for the objectives of this research paper and so are not to be fully analyzed; however, due to possible developments or extended research, they deserve partial consideration. The first of these technologies is the electrostatic colloid thruster. Relying upon a conductive liquid moving across a high potential, positive droplets form and are expelled from the spacecraft for propulsion (Jordan, 2000). Extremely small thrust capabilities, minimal efficiency, and insufficient development relegate the colloid thruster to the category of partial consideration (European Space Agency, 2004). Another technology not considered for full analysis is the Field Emission Electric Propulsion (FEEP) thruster. Similar to the colloid thruster in the implementation of a conductive liquid, this typically metal material is subjected to a strong magnetic field, which ionizes the surface of the liquid, contrasting with the colloid thruster which

extracts charged droplets (Jordan, 2000). These ions are then propelled through a slit from the spacecraft, providing thrust. While extremely efficient with a high Isp, the FEEP system produces minimal thrust and is subject to contamination from the liquid metal, reducing its viability as a primary propulsion system for a high mass payload (European Space Agency, 2004). The final propulsion system not considered for full analysis is the Nano-Particle Field Extraction Thruster (NanoFET). Similar in basic principle to colloid and FEEP thrusters, the NanoFET expels charged particles through electric grids; however, the NanoFET system expels charged nanoparticles instead of either charged liquid droplets or ions (Liu, Keidar, Musinski, Gallimore, & Gilchrist, n.d.). The expulsion of nanoparticles provides several distinct advantages over other propulsion methods; primarily, thruster performance can be controlled based upon nanoparticle size, allowing for extensive scalability and large possible Isp ranges (Liu, Keidar, Musinski, Gallimore, & Gilchrist, n.d.). Two differing configurations are currently under investigation for use as a propulsion system; first, the liquid- reservoir system, in which the nanoparticles are stored, charged, and extracted for propulsion, and second, the dry-NanoFET system, which uses electric actuators to extract the charged particles for expulsion (Liu, et al., 2008). Promising initial results notwithstanding, the NanoFET system requires extensive testing and development before being fully considered as a viable propulsion method for high mass, long distance transportation. In meeting with the primary report objectives, several electrostatic propulsion types offered significant advantages over comparative systems. The NanoFET system, while highly promising and offering massive operational advantages over other electrostatic systems, is not included due to a stage of insignificant development. The other two primary propulsion systems were the Hall Effect thruster and the gridded electrostatic ion thruster; offering significantly

higher efficiencies and a larger Isp range, the gridded electrostatic ion thruster system fails to fully meet the outlined objectives due to an extremely low thrust performance. The Hall Effect thruster, while having only moderate Isp and efficiency levels, more adequately meets the requirements for a long distance, high mass transport system. Therefore, the Hall Effect thruster is recommended as the most viable electrostatic propulsion system, with the NanoFET propulsion system as a possibly viable option, pending development. Electric Propulsion Systems: Electromagnetic Thrusters Electromagnetic propulsion systems expel charged plasma particles, similar to electrostatic thrusters; the temperature and density of plasma generated and expelled by electromagnetic thrusters are, however, considerably larger and produce significantly higher exhaust velocities (Jordan, 2000). The basic operating principle for all electromagnet thrusters is the production, acceleration, and expulsion of plasma through the use of powerful electromagnetic fields (Jordan, 2000). A conductive propellant, typically a high mass gas such as xenon, is injected into the primary chamber. Once inside, perpendicular electric and magnetic fields interact with the propellant, and electrons traversing across or trapped within said fields ionize the injected particles (Jahn & Choueiri, 2002). The horizontally located magnetic field accelerates the positively charged ions, and collisions from trapped electrons further contribute to the acceleratory effects (European Space Agency, 2004). Powerful magnetic fields allow for denser, higher temperature plasma to be accelerated and expelled, while maintaining high exhaust velocities and high mass efficiencies (Jahn & Choueiri, 2002). Several varieties of electromagnetic thrusters are comparatively analyzed, and an overall recommendation is concluded indicating the thruster best meeting the stated mission constraints.

This report considers the Pulsed Inductive Thruster (PIT) technology as a primary potential solution to the requirements for viability. In Figure 7, a basic diagram for the PIT systems is shown; a conductive strip surrounds the thrusters, an insulating strip separates the conductive strip from the internal plasma chamber, and the internal chamber is closed on one end (Jordan, 2000). The conductive strip is connected to a large capacitor bank, and the internal chamber is connected to a propellant injector. When the capacitor bank discharges, a large electromagnetic field is generated within the internal chamber, and the propellant injector releases the propellant, typically xenon or similar inert gas, into the chamber (Jordan, 2000). As the propellant interacts with the strong electromagnetic fields, ionization occurs leaving positively charged particles within the chamber; these particles comprise a plasma with an opposing current to the generated electromagnetic field, rapidly expelling the plasma through the open end of the thruster (LaPointe & Mikellides, 2002; Jordan, 2000). One primary difference from other electromagnetic propulsion systems is the pulsed nature of this thruster; continual electric and magnetic fields are not maintained, with a pulsed electromagnetic field generated instead. A critical concern in utilizing the PIT system for long distance, high mass, manned missions is the effect of extended human exposure to unshielded electromagnetic fields. However, the system still meets the stated constraints, as it is a possibly viable technology for long distance, high mass flights. Within the category of electromagnetic thrusters, the PIT system has a moderate Isp level, but both a high energy conversion efficiency and a high thrust level, as noted in Table 1 (Jordan, 2000). This indicates a relatively high possible viability as a propulsion system for high mass, long distance transit missions. Another type of electromagnetic thruster is the magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thruster; as shown in Figure 8, a cathode in the center of the thruster is surrounded by the anode,

generating the high strength electric field necessary for operation (Jahn & Choueiri, 2002). A large potential difference between the cathode and anode creates the ionization region, where a strong electric field bombards and ionizes the neutral gaseous propellant; therefore, the cathode, located centrally, extends the entire length of the proposed ionization region (Jordan, 2000). This electric current produces an azimuthal magnetic field, which helps to accelerate the positively charged plasma. Depending upon the energy and temperature of the plasma, two differing mechanisms produce the acceleratory magnetic field; in low plasma systems, a higher electric charge between the cathode and anode creates a sufficient magnetic acceleration field (a selffield system), but for higher energies and temperatures, an external magnetic field is necessitated, allowing for a lower electric current but a higher plasma energy (an applied field system) (Jordan, 2000). Contrasting with the self-field system depicted in Figure 8, Figure 9 contains a depiction of an applied field system. Two different operating states further distinguish types of MPD thrusters. In quasi-steady state, or pulsed state, operation, the MPD thruster discharges across the cathode-anode arc in a capacitive manner, allowing for higher magnetic fields and higher currents over an average period of time (Jordan, 2000). However, arc erosion of the cathode is more severe in the quasi-steady operational state, limiting the effective lifetime of the MPD system. In steady state operation, the other operational state, the MPD thruster produces both high thrust and high Isp, but the large power requirement reduces operability and practicality of any such system (Jordan, 2000; Jahn & Choueiri, 2002). A combination of these two operational states is achieved through a quasi-steady pulse mode that operates for specific periods of time to allow a steady state pattern to control the plasma acceleration (Jahn & Choueiri, 2002). Overall, the MPD thruster offers extremely high Isp ranges, between 1,000 and 11,000, and extremely high thrust levels, between 20 and 200,000 mN, as noted in Table 1

(Jordan, 2000). Lower efficiency ranges, between 10% and 40%, and a high tendency for cathode corrosion indicate two significant detrimental effects of the MPD propulsion system (Jahn & Choueiri, 2002; Jordan, 2000). Altogether, the MPD propulsion system constitutes a possibly viable propulsion system suited for high mass, long distance transportation. In addition to the aforementioned electromagnetic propulsion systems, three alternate designs were not fully discussed, due to their inability to fully meet the conditions for validity. The first of these propulsion systems is the Pulsed Plasma Thruster (PPT); an electric arc across an anode and a cathode towards the rear of the thruster generates the plasma, while the magnetic field generated by the arc expels the charged particles (Jordan, 2000). This electric current is generated by a capacitor, eliminating the possibility of continual operation. This report considers the PPT system unviable for the purpose of high mass transport due to the extremely miniscule amount of thrust expected, between 0.005 and 20 mN as noted in Table 1. Additionally, propellant utilization efficiencies between 5% and 15% further increase the unviability of the PPT system (Jordan, 2000). This report considers therefore the PPT system to be unviable within the stated constraints. Another technology omitted from full analysis is the Electrode-less Plasma Thruster (EPT) system. With capabilities of up to 2.79 N of thrust, an Isp of approximately 3350, and an operating efficiency of 91%, the EPT system is a seemingly viable possibility for future high mass, long distance missions (Emsellem, n.d.). The EPT utilizes a gasdynamic mirror magnetic concept to propel the charged plasma from the open end of the spacecraft; this concept, while not fully outlined here, would allow the acceleration of the plasma without the use of electrodes, thereby eliminating the possibility of electrode corrosion and massively extending the operational lifetime of the thruster (Kammash & Tang, 2005). While a highly promising technology, its full inclusion in this report is restricted by its technology readiness level of 3, far

below an acceptable standard for viability (Kammash & Tang, 2005). Finally, the Helicon Double Layer Thruster (HDLT) provides another developing alternative to the field of electromagnetic propulsion. Utilizing radiofrequency systems to generate plasma, these particles are then accelerated and expelled when in the presence of a diverging magnetic field, which is also generated by the HDLT system (Pottinger, Lappas, Charles, & Boswell, n.d.). Initial results from the testing of an HDLT system indicate a low Isp of 280, which is unviable as a large mass or long distance transit propulsion system (Pottinger, Lappas, Charles, & Boswell, n.d.). Additionally, the HDLT is in developmental stages, and when combined with the limited future prospects of such a system, it was not considered as a current viable solution within this report. Of these developing but currently not viable technologies, the EPT system is currently considered the most viable propulsion option pending further development. Through comparison between varying electromagnetic propulsion systems, this report concludes that the MPD thruster system is currently the most viable for high mass, long distance transit missions. While the PIT system has a comparable Isp range, a higher efficiency range, and a significantly higher power to thrust ratio (kW/N), the MPD thruster offers both a pulsed and a steady state of operation, establishing a compromise between efficiency and functionality; the full range of numbers are depicted in Table 1. This report also concludes that the EPT system is a potentially viable alternative, but requires substantially more development and research. As summarized by this report, both the EPT and MPD systems meet the requirements for viability as previously stated, and the MPD system is recommended as the primer electromagnetic propulsion system, while the EPT system is recommended as a viable alternative pending further development. Electric Propulsion Systems: Electrothermal Thrusters

Electrothermal thrusters differ from both electromagnetic and electrostatic propulsion systems due to their operational design; electromagnetic and electrostatic systems propel charged ions through the use of electric and magnetic fields, while electrothermal systems heat the propellant, and rely upon thermal dynamics to propel the system (Jordan, 2000). In typical operation, a propellant is electrically heated, which increases the pressure and expands the gas, forcing the energized mass out of the nozzle and providing thrust to the spacecraft (Jahn & Choueiri, 2002). There are three types of electrothermal propulsion systems; arcjet, resistojet, and inductively or radiatively heated systems (European Space Agency, 2004). Each of these three propulsion systems is considered viable, and each is discussed in the succeeding paragraphs. A resistojet propulsion system relies upon the outlined concept for electrothermal thrusters; as shown in Figure 10, a propellant is injected into the resistojet assembly, heated by a power supply and radiative heat transfer, and then expelled through a compressive exhaust nozzle (Jordan, 2000). In more advanced resistojet concepts, a dual stage reaction increases propellant efficiency; hydrazine, after undergoing conventional chemical decompression, is then electrically heated and expelled, massively increasing the thrust yield from a set amount of propellant (European Space Agency, 2004; Jordan, 2000). However, the Isp for resistojet thrusters is limited due to the high molecular mass of the propellant and an approximate 3000 K temperature ceiling due to direct exposure of critical elements to internal resistojet temperatures (European Space Agency, 2004). As noted in Table 1, an electrotheremal resistojet has an approximate 150 to 700 Isp range, efficiency levels between 35% and 90%, and thrust between 5 and 5,000 mN; for an resistojet powered by a dual stage hydrazine reaction, Isp becomes restricted to between 299 and 304, energy conversion efficiency exceeds 300% (due to additional

thrust provided by the decompression of the hydrazine), and thrust levels of 330 mN and above (Jordan, 2000). Both the high efficiency levels and high maximum thrust levels indicate potential viability as described in this report, but a low Isp and negligible systems development or testing within the report parameters detract from the overall operability of the resistojet propulsion system. Nevertheless, research by the Georgia Tech College of Engineering indicated the resistojets viability for a high mass Martian transit mission (Seitzman, 2006), further indicating the viability of this technology within the primary constraints. Another potentially viable electrothermal propulsion system is the arcjet thruster. This propulsion system relies upon a centrally located cathode surrounded by an anode; a high voltage electric field is generated between the cathode and anode, while the propellant is injected between the two electrodes (Jordan, 2000). As shown in Figure 11, the anode additionally functions as the nozzle for expelling the superheated gas (Jordan, 2000). In the resistojet propulsion concept, a primary limiting factor was the maximum attainable operating temperature of 3,000 K; this temperature maximum is increased to between 10,000 K and 20,000 K in arcjet thrusters (European Space Agency, 2004). The indirect application of these extremely high temperatures through an electric current provides insulation for operational elements, and the expulsion pattern of the superheated gas contributes to the insulating effect (Jahn & Choueiri, 2002). Comparatively large Isp ranges, between 280 and 2,300, give significant advantages over resistojet propulsion methods, while a comparable thrust range of 50 to 5,000 mN further indicates the viability of the arcjet propulsion system (Jordan, 2000). Conversely however, the resistojet thruster system provides a significantly higher energy conversion efficiency range, of approximately 35% to 90% compared with the arcjet efficiency range of 30% to 50% (Jordan, 2000). Additional concerns detract from the operability and viability of the arcjet system,

including electrode erosion and massive power requirements, has led to negligible implementation or development of the thruster in relation to use as a primary propulsion method (Jahn & Choueiri, 2002). While this report considers the arcjet thruster as a more viable alternative to the resistojet system, lacking implementation and moderate performance reduce its ability to meet the outlined requirements adequately. The final method for electrothermal propulsion is inductively or radiatively heated systems. As a major limiting factor for arcjet implementation is continual reliability due to electrode corrosion, inductively or radiatively heated systems utilize an applied, oscillating electromagnetic field to interact with the propellant and generate primary thrust (Jahn & Choueiri, 2002). Propulsion systems within this category include both electrothermal and electrostatic components, and some thruster types include additional electromagnetic propulsion aspects; for this reason, classification of the subsequent systems is often inconsistent (Jahn & Choueiri, 2002). Several prototypes for this propulsion type are currently being developed, including the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR). The VASIMR system produces extremely high Isp levels, theoretically between 3,000 and 30,000 and tested between 5,000 and 12,000, relatively high tested thrust levels of 5,000 mN, and moderately high efficiency levels of approximately 60% (Ad Astra Rocket Company, n.d.; Bering, et al., 2008; Carter, et al., 2005; Jordan, 2000). This system includes electrothermal and electromagnetic propulsion components, indicating its placement within the inductive and radiatively heated systems category. The operation of the VASIMR system relies upon the ionization, compression, acceleration, and expulsion of a propellant gas (Ad Astra Rocket Company, n.d.). A high energy radiofrequency, or helicon, coupler ionizes the upstream injected propellant gas, creating positively charged plasma, which is then accelerated and compressed to a secondary

radiofrequency chamber (Ad Astra Rocket Company, n.d.). This secondary radiofrequency coupler, part of the Ion Cyclotron Heating (ICH) section, energizes the compressed plasma, and increases the temperature of the plasma to approximately 1,000,000 K (Ad Astra Rocket Company, n.d.; Bering, et al., 2008). The highly energized plasma is then directed into the magnetic nozzle, where ionic orbital momentum is converted into linear momentum and expelled from the thruster; exhaust velocities can reach approximately 50 kilometers per second, and generating considerable amounts of thrust; a visual representation of the operation of the VASIMR system is depicted in Figure 12 (Ad Astra Rocket Company, n.d.). In addition to high performance capabilities, the VASIMR propulsion system conditionally varies the power levels of the two radiofrequency couplers, increasing or decreasing both Isp and thrust, depending upon mission constraints (Ad Astra Rocket Company, n.d.; Carter, et al., 2005). Several principal concerns reduce the viability of the VASIMR system, including the safety concern of crewmember exposure to intense electromagnetic and radiofrequency radiation, and the operational concern considering the currently inadequate stage of development and implementation; space-based testing has not yet been achieved with this system (Jordan, 2000). In summation, the VASIMR propulsion system provides overall increases in performance over comparative systems while allowing significant in-flight variability, but space-based testing and further development is required before the system is fully operational. Of the various electrothermal systems discussed, the performance of the VASIMR system provides unparalleled advantages over both resistojet and arcjet systems. While comparable thrust is theoretically achieved by all three systems, VASIMR remains the only tested technology to produce 5,000 mN of thrust; additionally, testing places VASIMR Isp levels significantly higher than both other systems, between 5,000 and 12,000 compared to either 280 to 2,300 or

150 to 700 (Jordan, 2000). The extremely high Isp levels prove highly advantageous for long distance transits, while the relatively high thrust levels indicate moderately fast acceleration. While outstripping both comparative systems in performance, the VASIMR system requires significantly more development before full operability is achieved; equivalently, the arcjet and resistojet systems are not developed or tested at significantly high performance levels. Therefore, this paper recommends the VASIMR technology as the most viable electrothermal propulsion system for meeting the mission constraints, even though the technology remains to be fully developed. As both the resistojet and arcjet systems are negligibly developed for the mission constraints, they are not considered fully viable by this report, and so are excluded from recommendation. Electric Propulsion Systems: Conclusion Of the three primary electric propulsion system types, electrostatic, electromagnetic, and electrothermal, specific thruster systems and methods were discussed, and their validity assessed. This report recommended a specific technology that is considered comparatively better in relation to meeting the stated criteria for validity, including performance, development, and current implementation. Several recommendations were also made, pending development; however, this report considers said recommendations currently unviable, and are not included in this final analysis. For the electrostatic propulsion system type, the Hall Effect thruster is considered the most viable technology; in the succeeding category, the electromagnetic MPD thruster is recommended; finally, the VASIMR propulsion system is recommended over the various electrothermal propulsion types. Of the aforementioned systems, a comparative analysis and recommendation denotes the technology that best meets with the mission constraints. The Hall Effect thruster, with a moderate energy conversion efficiency percentage, but comparatively

low Isp and thrust range, is not recommended for time sensitive, long distance, high mass transit missions; where time is not critical to mission success, this propulsion method may be recommended, but for the outlined mission parameters, is comparatively not recommended. With an extremely high thrust range and comparatively high Isp, the MPD thruster is a comparatively viable alternative. A primary concern with this technology however, is its low efficiency range and tendency for electrode corrosion, currently detracting from the operability of the system for a long range or extended duration transit. This technology is partially recommended. Finally, the VASIMR system, which has an extremely high Isp range and comparatively moderate thrust and efficiency levels, is a technology with significant relative advantages. Higher performance levels than Hall Effect thrusters, and comparable performance with the MPD thruster without corroding electrodes, the VASIMR system is the primarily recommended electric propulsion technology for the stated requirements. While developmentally adequate, its current stage of deployment is significantly behind the other two systems; however, the VASIMR systems overall performance indicates an extremely viable technology at a relatively high stage of development. A more in depth summarization of the various technologies is found in the preceding sections, and specific values for thrust, Isp, and energy conversion efficiency are found in Table 1. In summation, this paper recommends the VASIMR technology as the most viable electric propulsion system, with a partial recommendation to the MPD thruster system. Nuclear Propulsion Systems Nuclear propulsion systems offer massive comparative advantages over electric propulsion systems in terms of both thrust and Isp. Two categorical types of nuclear propulsion systems are outlined; first, direct thrust propulsion, which utilizes the products of a nuclear reaction for direct propulsion, and secondly, nuclear thermal propulsion, which uses thermal

expansion as thrust. Currently, however, no direct nuclear or nuclear thermal propulsion system has flown; testing, including full operation of a nuclear thermal thruster has occurred, and research with more advanced nuclear systems is currently being conducted. Therefore, this report considers nuclear propulsion systems inherently unviable; the subsequent sections detail theoretical viability of various nuclear propulsion systems, but a full analysis is restricted due to current developmental stage. Nuclear Propulsion Systems: Direct Nuclear Thrust A direct nuclear thrust system uses the products of a nuclear reaction as propellant; three conceptual types are analyzed with an assessment on current development, theoretical performance, and conceptual design. While these technologies are currently theoretical, assessment of viability is vital for the continuation of current developmental strategies and research investment. An overall conclusion states this reports recommendation for the technology that best accomplishes the mission parameters based upon theoretical application and functionality. Of the various types of direct nuclear propulsion systems, the first is a fission fragment nuclear reactor thruster. The basic operating principle behind a fission fragment thruster is the direct utilization of energy produced in a fission reaction. A possible implementation of this system is achieved through the exposure of a fission reactor core to space, with the generated interior fission fragments magnetically directed towards the exit nozzle (Chapline, Dickson, & Schnitzler, n.d.). An alternative fission fragment propulsion system uses decelerated fission fragments or decay products which are guided from the fission reactor through magnetic fields, then heated by radiofrequency induction coils and expelled from the thruster (Clark & Sheldon,

2005). While both propulsion types utilize the direct products of fission, the latter magnetically selects only the extremely high temperature ionized fission fragments for expulsion and then increases their temperature through radiofrequency induction coils, while the former utilizes the average high temperature of the reactor, which includes unreacted particles and no additional heating (Clark & Sheldon, 2005). A diagram of the latter reaction is shown in Figure 13, and the estimated Isp levels from the reaction reach approximately 1,000,000 (Clark & Sheldon, 2005). No fission fragment nuclear reactor thruster concept has been tested, but an analysis by Rodney A. Clark and Robert B. Sheldon indicates the system is within current technological limits (Clark & Sheldon, 2005). Similar in design to the fission fragment system, the fusion rocket thruster utilizes the direct products of a fusion reaction to produce thrust. Several differing theoretical concepts attempt to create the fusion reaction and utilize the produced energy as thrust; however, recent experiments at the University of Washington demonstrate the use of Magneto Inertial Confinement Fusion (MICF) for the production and direction of fusion energy (Pancotti, et al., n.d.). A plasmoid is impacted with circular metallic rings, which compress at the nozzle of the thruster chamber producing fusion conditions and expelling the energetic products, while a directed magnetic force expels the highly energetic ionized plasma (Pancotti, et al., n.d.). This reaction produces both high Isp and extremely high variable thrust levels (Pancotti, et al., n.d.). The propulsion of the solid rings towards the plasmoid both expels the fusion reaction through the thruster chamber and into the nozzle, and to create fusion conditions for further propulsion (Slough & Kirtley, n.d.). This method of momentary propulsion is a form of Nuclear Pulse Propulsion (NPP), which uses directed pulsed fusion explosions to provide thrust and propulsion to the thruster; while traditional NPP systems relied upon larger fusion bombs, the underlying

principle is maintained (Klien, 2012). A primary advantage to this system is the external nature of the propulsion technology, reducing the risk of internal systems or personnel injury (Pancotti, et al., n.d.). This system, currently in preliminary experimental testing, is a highly promising direct nuclear thrust technology, with a comparatively high stage of development. An additional type of NPP technologies is the Antimatter Catalyzed Nuclear Pulse Propulsion (ACNPP) system, which utilizes small quantities of antimatter to start a fusion reaction (Kircher, n.d.). While conceptually sound, no testing has occurred with the ACNPP design, and minimal antimatter production and little comparative advantage over the currently developing NPP systems heavily reduces the overall viability of the ACNPP system (Chakrabarti, Dundore, Gaidos, Lewis, & Smith, n.d.; Kircher, n.d.). Additionally, a direct antimatter drive is conceptually proposed, but the miniscule annual production of antimatter, approximately 10 nanograms, means the direct antimatter drive is currently and foreseeably unviable (Kircher, n.d.). For each of the three categories for direct nuclear propulsion several conceptual designs were detailed. As previously mentioned, these technologies are inherently unviable due to lack of development, implementation, or technological ability, but each of the systems described were briefly analyzed and discussed. For the conceptual designs in the antimatter category, this report concluded that they are currently and foreseeably unviable due to production and storage challenges related to antimatter particles. Additionally, the fission propulsion category contains several theoretically sound technologies, but minimal scalability, high crewmember risk, and comparatively small thrust levels indicate the limited current and future viability of this technology. Finally, this report analyzed the fusion category for direct nuclear propulsion, and the current stage of development and experimentation in addition to the relative safety of

operation and controllability of the fusion reaction indicates a high probability for future viability and the recommendation for the continuation of development for the NPP system. Nuclear Propulsion Systems: Nuclear Thermal Thrust Contrasting with the operating principle of direct nuclear thrust systems, nuclear thermal thrust systems do not rely upon the products of a nuclear reaction for direct thrust; instead, nuclear thermal thrust systems rely upon the heat generated during a reaction to expand and expel particles for propulsion. Although no nuclear thermal propulsion system is flight tested, several extensive governmental projects developed and ground tested preliminary nuclear thermal thrusters. Two primary categories of nuclear thermal thrusters are briefly examined, with an analysis of the current and future viability for each of the developing conceptual technologies. Heat generated from a nuclear reactor powers the first type of nuclear thermal power systems; an initiated reaction generates heat, which is then converted into thrust by the expansion of particles. As an initiated and regulated reaction is required, these systems are types of an active nuclear thermal propulsion system. Three subsequent types of nuclear reactor cores generate propulsion for this system; solid core, liquid core, and gas core. In a solid core reaction, a propellant fluid passes through a thermal radiative system where heat from the reactor is transferred to the fluid; evaporation and expansion occurs as the temperature increases, and once the propellant reaches the approximate temperature of the reactor, the particles are expelled as exhaust for thrust (Winter, 2006). Rockets previously tested in the NERVA program used solid core propulsion systems, indicating the operability and advanced development stage of the solid core thruster (Winter, 2006). Solid core rockets have an approximate Isp range between 850 and 1000, and a relatively high thrust compared to alternate nuclear propulsion systems (Winter,

2006). Standard liquid core propulsion systems are considered too difficult to construct and maintain; an alternative, proposed by Robert Zubrin, is a Nuclear Salt Water Rocket (NSWR) (Zubrin R. , 1991). Consisting of several boron-carbide storage pipes and a single larger pipe ending in the rocket nozzle, a uranium or plutonium salt solution would flow into the larger pipe; once the solution reaches a specific level, the solution begins a fission reaction (Zubrin R. , 1991). This continual chain reaction would superheat the liquid, expanding to form a gas and expelled from the thruster nozzle (Zubrin R. , 1991). A primary concern for the viability of this system is the ability for the liquid to reach a supercritical mass; this ability is unclear at the current stage of development (McNutt, 1999). If operational, the rocket would have an Isp range between 5,000 and 100,000, with a very high relative thrust level (Winter, 2006). The final type of nuclear core for the nuclear thermal propulsion category is a gaseous core. A Gaseous Core Nuclear Rocket (GCNR) operates through the magnetic confinement of the reactor core, which is in a gaseous state; the fissile material is typically either uranium hexafluoride or uranium tetraflouride (Velidi, Guven, & Dhar, 2012; Winter, 2006). Several injection locations are spread equally around the spherical containment chamber, for the homogenous reaction of the fissile material (Velidi, Guven, & Dhar, 2012). Hydrogen serves as both the propellant and coolant, with aqueous hydrogen flowing around the spherical containment chamber (Velidi, Guven, & Dhar, 2012). Once heated by the fission reaction, the hydrogen becomes highly compressed and is expelled through a nozzle, providing propulsion to the system (A.S. & E.E., 2007; Velidi, Guven, & Dhar, 2012). Approximate Isp levels range between 3,000 and 5,000, while a relatively high thrust level is maintained (A.S. & E.E., 2007; Winter, 2006). In comparing the three types of nuclear reactor cores for nuclear thermal propulsion systems, the potential future validity of these technologies is assessed. While extensively developed and ground tested, the solid core

nuclear thermal rocket is considered not relatively viable; extremely low relative Isp values and equal or lower thrust levels than the two alternative reactor core types ensures the infeasibility of the solid core propulsion system. The next reactor type, the GNCR, has significant advantages over the other nuclear reactor propulsion types. A higher Isp range than the solid core reactor and a theoretically proven conceptual design compared to the unproven NSWR concept induces a relatively high level of considered viability; however, extremely complex construction and lower Isp and thrust levels than the NSWR results in a partial recommendation for constrain viability. The last reactor core type, the NSWR, has an extremely high Isp range and a very high relative thrust level, indicating its overall feasibility as a long distance, high mass propulsion system. An unproven conceptual operation is the primary constraint for the NSWR system. Nevertheless, this report concludes that the NSWR system is currently the most potentially viable reactor based nuclear thermal propulsion system. Similar to the previous nuclear thermal propulsion systems, the radioisotope nuclear thermal thruster in the passive nuclear thermal propulsion subcategory indirectly provides propulsion through radiative heating of a liquid propellant (LeMoyne, 2006). This working fluid is held in cylindrical storage chambers; as the temperature of the fluid increases due to radiative heating, it begins to expand through pipes surrounding the reactor (Dalley, Friedman, Martinez, Allen, & Jortner, 1962). Once within the surrounding pipes, the working fluid is subjected to further temperature increases, eventually creating a highly compressed gaseous compound (Dalley, Friedman, Martinez, Allen, & Jortner, 1962). This compressed gas is then expelled from the thruster, providing propulsion to the system (Dalley, Friedman, Martinez, Allen, & Jortner, 1962). With an extremely low Isp range between 700 and 800, this propulsion method is highly inefficient; further, an extremely low conversion efficiency of approximately 1% and extremely

low thrust to weight ratios indicate this system is highly unviable for the proposed mission constraints (Bussard, 1958; Dalley, Friedman, Martinez, Allen, & Jortner, 1962). Preliminary research indicates minimal development or testing with the radioisotope thermal propulsion system, and extremely low theoretical performance ranges restrict any possibility for viability. This report concludes that based upon current stages of development and conceptualization, the radioisotope thermal propulsion system is currently and foreseeably unviable. In the preceding analyses of nuclear thermal propulsion systems, conceptual and developing propulsion systems were detailed and comparatively assessed. In the passive nuclear thermal propulsion subcategory, the radioisotope nuclear thermal conceptual propulsion system was examined; with an extremely low relative Isp range and negligible thrust production, this report recommended the radioisotope propulsion method be considered unviable within the defined parameters. The other propulsion system, the NSWR of the active nuclear thermal propulsion subcategory, has significantly higher Isp and thrust ranges allowing this technology to be considered as a potentially viable propulsion technology. Significant detracting factors of the NSWR system include negligible current or expected development, and an unproven operational concept. However, as the radioisotope propulsion method is theoretically unviable, this report concludes that of the nuclear thermal propulsion systems, the NSWR is the most viable potential technology and is given a partial recommendation for continued development and research. Nuclear Propulsion Systems: Conclusion Of the two primary nuclear propulsion categories, direct and thermal, this report recommended the most potentially viable propulsion system based upon both current and foreseeable development and research. Nuclear propulsion systems for space-based applications

are currently unimplemented, and this report cannot fully consider any aforementioned technology viable until it has reached an acceptable level of research and development. Several technologies within the nuclear propulsion category are tested, but this report cautions an incorrect assessment of validity for systems not extensively tested and adequately applied. Based upon conclusions reached by this paper in the preceding sections, the conceptual nuclear thermal propulsion technology with the highest potential viability is the NSWR thruster. High Isp and thrust ranges are conducive to the potential viability of this propulsion method. A significant negative aspect of the NSWR reactor is the untested theoretical basis of operation; significant debate over the functionality of the reaction method creates significant viability concerns. While a highly promising technology, the current stage of conceptualization restricts it to a partial recommendation for validity. Selected as potentially most viable from the direct nuclear propulsion category, the NPP system shows an extremely high potential for fulfilling the required constraints; outperforming the NSWR reactor with extremely high thrust and Isp levels, the NPP system is also in a higher stage of development and testing. A significant concern with the NPP system is the United Nations treaty banning nuclear tests in outer space; as NPP relies upon fusion explosions to propel the spacecraft, significant proliferation concerns could restrict its use (United Nations, 1963). Although both propulsion methods offer significant advantages over other alternatives in fulfilling the mission constraints, the NPP system receives this reports recommendation based upon a higher stage of development and improved overall performance; this technology is considered viable pending application and further testing. Alternate Propulsion Technologies and Methods As mentioned in the prefacing section, several types of propulsion methods are not examined within this essay. As the conditions for viability reside upon the ability of a propulsion

system to transport high mass payloads over interplanetary distances within a reasonable time frame, multiple propulsion systems are either inherently or currently unable to meet these constraints. Examples of inherently unviable systems include chemical thermal combustion rockets; these propulsion systems, which have extremely high thrust levels and thrust to weight ratios, have abysmally low exhaust velocity and Isp levels. Unless massive changes occur within the design and performance of these systems, they will remain unviable for the applications this report assesses. Other propulsion systems not fully analyzed includes field propulsion technologies. These systems utilize intrinsic space phenomenon for use as propulsion; a primary example of this technology is the solar sail. Using photonic energy emitted from the sun, the sail refracts the force of the photons and converts the kinetic energy into propulsion (NASA, 2011). Alternate forms of sail type propulsion include magnetic and electric sails; the former utilizes superconducting magnets to form a virtual sail, reflecting charged solar particles and providing propulsion, while the latter uses long tendrils of electric wires to generate an electric field, and is propelled by the momentum of the solar wind (Finnish Meteorological Institute, 2010; Janhunen, 2010; Zubrin & Martin, 1999). While requiring no fuel, the miniscule amount of thrust provided, in addition to the theoretical concept, low payload mass, and unacceptable transit durations, results in the unviability of this system. Alternative forms of propulsion systems not included are speculative or unproven theoretical propulsion methods. An alternate type of field propulsion relies upon an unsubstantiated theoretical effect, but it, and other such unproven concepts including warp, diametric, and disjunction drives, are not included due to complete current and near future inoperability. Conclusion

This report details current and near future propulsion technologies capable of transporting high mass payloads interplanetary distances within reasonable time constraints. Consisting of two primary categories for differing propulsion methods, each current and developing system potentially capable of fulfilling the stated requirements is comparatively analyzed against alternate technologies. Finally, this report assesses the viability of the propulsion system in meeting the mission constraints through the examination of technological development, current implementation, and overall performance. In assessing technologies fulfilling the requirements within the two propulsion categories, two technologies are recommended by this report to best meet the conditions for validity. From the electric propulsion categorical type, the VASIMR electrothermal propulsion system is recommended as the most viable form of electric propulsion. In the nuclear propulsion category, the current MICF-based NPP system is comparatively considered as the most viable nuclear propulsion technology, pending further development and testing. The prevailing purpose for this analysis is for investigatory research and potential viability assessment. Current stages of development for propulsion systems are regarded as inadequate, and the analyses performed by this paper highlight the most potentially viable technologies for the objective of continued research and analysis. In summation, this report recommends concentration on continued research, development, and testing of the VASIMR and NPP systems due to extremely high near future operability potentials within the conditional parameters for viability.

References
A.S., K., & E.E., S. (2007). Development Nuclear Gas Core Reactor in Russia. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. Moscow: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Retrieved from http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMASM07_1064/PV2007_35.pdf Ad Astra Rocket Company. (2012). VASIMR system. Retrieved from Image Gallery: http://www.adastrarocket.com/HiResImagesForPublicRelease/VASIMR-systemHiRes.jpg Ad Astra Rocket Company. (n.d.). Technology. Retrieved from Ad Astra Rocket Company: http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/Technology Bering, E. A., Squire, J. P., Chang-Daz, F. R., Glover, T. W., Carter, M. D., Cassady, L. D., . . . Longmier, B. W. (2008). VASIMR Performance Measurements at Powers Exceeding 50 kW and Lunar Robotic Mission Applications. Akiu/Sendai: International Interdisciplinary Symposium on Gaseous and Liquid Plasmas. Retrieved from http://www.adastrarocket.com/ISGLP_JPSquire2008.pdf Bussard, R. W. (1958). Concepts for Future Nuclear Rocket Propulsion. Los Alamos Scientic Laboratory. Los Alamos: Jet Propulsion. Retrieved from http://123seminarsonly.com/SeminarReports/020/50419394-Future-Nuclear-Rocket-Propulsion.pdf Carter, M. D., Chavers, D. G., Diaz, F. R., Glover, T. W., Squire, J. P., & Jacobson, V. P. (2005). Principal VASIMR Results and Present Objectives. Albuquerque: Space Technology and Applications International Forum. Retrieved from http://www.adastrarocket.com/TimSTAIF2005.pdf Chakrabarti, S., Dundore, B., Gaidos, G., Lewis, R., & Smith, G. (n.d.). Antiproton-Catalyzed Microfission/Fusion Propulsion Systems for Exploration of the Outer Solar System and Beyond.

University Park: Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from https://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/Papers/ICAN.pdf Chapline, G. F., Dickson, P. W., & Schnitzler, B. G. (n.d.). Fission Fragment Rockets - A Potential Breakthrough. Livermore: United States Government. Retrieved from http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/6868318/6868318.pdf Clark, R. A., & Sheldon, R. B. (2005). Dusty Plasma Based Fission Fragment Nuclear Reactor. Tuscon: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Retrieved from http://www.rbsp.info/rbs/RbS/PDF/aiaa05.pdf CommiM. (2007, September 04). The sketch of Nuclear-thermal-rocket written in English. Recreation in SVG. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nuclear_thermal_rocket_en.svg Dalley, C. L., Friedman, B. I., Martinez, J. S., Allen, E. W., & Jortner, D. (1962). Patent No. 3,315,471. United States of America. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/patents?id=pc5kAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q &f=false Duckysmokton. (2007, January 23). Dusty plasma bed reactor. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dusty_plasma_bed_reactor.svg Duckysmokton. (2007, January 20). Fission fragment propulsion. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fission_fragment_propulsion.svg Edelman, A. (2012, August 31). Introduction. Retrieved from Parallel Computing: http://beowulf.csail.mit.edu/~foxj/thruster.jpg

Emsellem, G. D. (n.d.). Electrodeless Plasma Thruster Design. Wilmington: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Retrieved from http://elwing.biz/files/JPC05-article.pdf European Space Agency. (2004, June 15). Electric Versus Chemical Propulsion. Retrieved from SMART - 1: http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=34201&fbodylongid=1535 European Space Agency. (2004, June 15). Hall Effect Thrusters. Retrieved from SMART - 1: http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=34201&fbodylongid=1538 European Space Agency. (2004, June 15). Methods of Electric Propulsion. Retrieved from SMART - 1: http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=34201&fbodylongid=1537 Finnish Meteorological Institute. (2010, December 09). EU Project to Build Electric Solar Wind Sail. Retrieved from PHYS . ORG: http://phys.org/news/2010-12-eu-electric-solar.html Goodman, J. (1997, April 10). Re: Why Can't We Travel Faster in Space? Retrieved from MadSci Network: Astonomy: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may97/860795535.As.r.html Hallas, T. (2001). ArcMW hallas alt. Retrieved from Astronomy Picture of the Day. Jahn, R. G., & Choueiri, E. Y. (2002). Electric Propulsion. Princeton University. Academic Press. Retrieved from http://alfven.princeton.edu/papers/Encyclopedia.pdf Janhunen, P. (2010). Electric Solar Wind Sail Spacecraft Propulsion. Retrieved from Electric Solar Wind Sail (E-sail): http://www.electric-sailing.fi/ Jordan, I. J. (2000). Electric Propulsion: Which One For My Spacecraft? Whiting School of Engineering. John Hopkins University. Retrieved from https://www.stsci.edu/~jordan/other/electric_propulsion_3.pdf

Kammash, T., & Tang, R. (2005). Electrodeless Plasma Thruster with Self-Generated Electric Field. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Retrieved from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/76795/AIAA-20054121-393.pdf?sequence=1 Kircher, S. (n.d.). Antimatter: Fission/Fusion Drive. Retrieved from http://ffden2.phys.uaf.edu/213.web.stuff/Scott%20Kircher/fissionfusion.html Klien, A. (2012, March 26). Nuclear Pulse Propulsion. Retrieved from Standford University: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/klein2/ LaPointe, M. R. (2001, June 21). Self-field MPD thruster. Retrieved from High-Power Magnetoplasmadynamic Thruster Being Developed: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/RT2000/images/5430lapointe-f1.jpg LaPointe, M. R., & Mikellides, P. G. (2002, June). High-Power Electromagnetic Thruster Being Developed. Retrieved from Glenn Research Center: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/RT2001/5000/5430lapointe.html LeMoyne, R. (2006). Fundamental Analysis of Radioisotope Propulsion. Running Springs: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. Retrieved from http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMSPACE06_1393/PV2006_7272.pdf Liu, T. M., Drenkow, B. D., Musinski, L. D., Gallimore, A. D., Gilchrist, B. E., Mirecki-Millunchick, J., . . . Muldoon, A. M. (2008). Developmental Progress of the Nanoparticle Field Extraction Thruster. University of Michigan. Hartford: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~peplweb/pdf/AIAA-2008-5096.pdf

Liu, T. M., Keidar, M., Musinski, L. D., Gallimore, A. D., & Gilchrist, B. E. (n.d.). Theoretical Aspects of Nanoparticle Electric Propulsion. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Lucas, P. (2005). MPD diagram. Retrieved from Plasma Rockets: http://orbitalvector.com/Deep%20Space%20Propulsion/Plasma%20Rockets/DSP_Image_MPDdi agram.jpg McNutt, R. L. (1999). Phase I Final Report NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts. Laurel: Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved from http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/76McNutt.pdf Mirecki, A. (2011, March 20). IKAROS solar sail. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IKAROS_solar_sail.jpg Mysid. (2012, July 18). Electrostatic ion thruster. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electrostatic_ion_thruster-en.svg NASA. (1970, January 29). Drawing of a NERVA engine. Retrieved from Great Images in NASA: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2002-000144.jpg NASA. (2003). Carinagigazoom eso big. Retrieved from Astronomy Picture of the Day. NASA. (2003, July 1). Vasmir. Retrieved from http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/support/researching/aspl/images/vasimr.jpg NASA. (2004, November 21). Fact Sheet - Ion Propulsion. Retrieved from Glenn Research Center: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs21grc.html NASA. (2005). Nuclear gas core open cycle rocket engine diagram. Retrieved from http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-

12/DLN/descriptions/presentations/Advanced%20Spacecraft%20Propulsion%20Concepts%20AI AA%20NAM%2002-2005%20(2.0).ppt NASA. (2011, January 24). Earth sail. Retrieved from Solar Sail Stunner: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/475897main_080421-Earth%2BSail_3023x2006.jpg NASA. (2011, December 16). Solar Sail Demonstration (The Sunjammer Project). Retrieved from NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/tdm/solarsail/solarsail_overview.html Pancotti, A. P., Slough, J. T., Kirtley, D. E., Pfaff, M., Pilh, C., & Votroubek, G. (n.d.). Mission Design Architecture for the Fusion Driven Rocket. MSNW LLC. Redmond: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Retrieved from http://msnwllc.com/Papers/FDR_JPC_2012.pdf Plihon, N., Chabert, P., & Raimbault, J.-L. (n.d.). Helicon Double Layer Thruster Concept for High Power NEP Missions. European Space Administration. Retrieved from https://perso.enslyon.fr/nicolas.plihon/Publis/ARIADNAHDLT.pdf Pottinger, S., Lappas, V., Charles, C., & Boswell, R. (n.d.). Performance Characterisation of a Helicon Double Layer Thruster using Direct Thrust Measurements. Retrieved from http://repository.peerproject.eu:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/17567/1/PEER_stage2_10.1 088%252F0022-3727%252F44%252F23%252F235201.pdf Prado, M. E. (n.d.). Electric Propulsion for Inter-Orbital Vehicles. Retrieved from PERMANENT: http://www.permanent.com/space-transportation-electric.html#how-russ Seitzman, J. M. (2006). Hydrazine Resistojet. Georgia Tech College of Engineering. Retrieved from http://soliton.ae.gatech.edu/people/jseitzma/classes/ae6450/electrothermal_thrusters.pdf

Slough, J., & Kirtley, D. (n.d.). Nuclear Propulsion based on Inductively Driven Liner Compression of Fusion Plasmoids. University of Washington. Seattle: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Retrieved from http://msnwllc.com/Papers/FDR_AIAA_2011.pdf United Nations. (1963). Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and under Water. Moscow: United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/pdf/Partial_Ban_Treaty.pdf University of Washington. (2013). Spacecraft mars. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/news/files/2013/04/spacecraft_mars.jpg Velidi, G., Guven, U., & Dhar, A. (2012). Gas Core Reactor as Technological Breakthrough for Long Range Space Missions. Washington, DC: International Astronautical Federation. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1784468/Gas_Core_Reactor_as_a_Technological_Breakthrough_for _Long_Range_Space_Missions Ward, D. (2000). Electric (Ion) Propulsion. Retrieved from Electric (Ion): https://eo.ucar.edu/staff/dward/sao/fit/electric.htm Winter, C. P. (2006, June 10). Nuclear Rockets. Retrieved from To Open The Sky: http://www.chriswinter.com/CATS_Quest/Nuc_Rkt.html Zickefoose, C., Rotter, J., & Morgan, B. (2009, March 3). Lorentz meets newton. Retrieved from DaytonCincinnati AIAA: http://www.aiaadaycin.org/daycin_old/sites/default/files/images/20090303_AiS_LorentzMeetsNewton.jpg Zubrin, R. (1991). Nuclear Salt Water Rockets: High Thrust at 10,000 Sec Isp. Denver: Journal of The British Interplanetary Society. Retrieved from http://path-2.narod.ru/design/base_e/nswr.pdf

Zubrin, R., & Martin, A. (1999). NIAC Study of the Magnetic Sail. Lakewood: Pioneer Astronautics. Retrieved from http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/fellows/nov99/320Zubrin.pdf

Table 1: Expected Performance Parameters for Examined Propulsion Systems Propulsion System Type Propulsion System Energy Conversion Efficiency Nuclear Thermal Gas Core Solid Core NSWR Radioisotope Direct Nuclear Fission Fragment NPP Antimatter Electrostatic Colloidal Gridded Hall Effect FEEP NanoFET Electromagnetic PIT MPD Electrodeless Helicon PPT Electrothermal VASIMR 5 - 15% < 60% 75% 75 - 90% 40 - 60% 80 - 98% > 90% 20 - 60% 10 40% 61 91% 1,500 3,000 850 1,000 5,000 100,000 650 - 700 1,000,000 > 10,000 13,000 1,100 1,500 1,200 10,000 1,500 2,500 4,000 6,000 100 10,000 1,000 7,000 1,000 11,000 3,350 4,200 500 - 1000 1,000 1,500 3,000 30,000 2,000 200,000+ 20 200,000 5.9 2,790 0.05 0.3 0.005 20 180,000,000 0.001 0.5 0.005 500 < 220 0.001 1,000 1,300 1,500 Specific Impulse Thrust Level (s) (mN)

Arcjet Resistojet

30 - 50% 35 90%

280 2,300 150 700

50 5,000 5 5,000

Note: Data collected from the following resources: (Ad Astra Rocket Company, n.d.; Bering, et al., 2008; Jordan, 2000; Kammash & Tang, 2005; LeMoyne, 2006; Pottinger, Lappas, Charles, & Boswell, n.d.; Winter, 2006; Zubrin R. , 1991)

Figure 1: Visual representation of a gridded electrostatic ion thruster; used additionally on the accompanying webpage on the Electric Propulsion and Electrostatic Propulsion Systems pages (Mysid, 2012).

Figure 2: Alternate depiction of a gridded electrostatic ion thruster; used additionally on the website on the Electrostatic Propulsion Systems page (Ward, 2000).

Figure 3: Depiction of the operation of a Hall Effect thruster; in use on the webpage on the Electrostatic Propulsion Systems page (Edelman, 2012).

Figure 4: Cross section of a Hall Effect thruster with an extended insulator channel; used additionally on the webpage on the Electric Propulsion and Electrostatic Propulsion Systems pages (Jahn & Choueiri, 2002).

Figure 5: Cross section of an SPT Hall Effect thruster with an extended insulator channel; in use on the webpage on the Electrostatic Propulsion Systems page (European Space Agency, 2004).

Figure 6: Cross section of a TAL Hall Effect thruster without an extended insulator channel; in use on the webpage on the Electrostatic Propulsion Systems page (European Space Agency, 2004).

Figure 7: Diagram of a PIT propulsion system; in use on the webpage on the Electromagnetic Propulsion Systems page (Jordan, 2000).

Figure 8: Cross section of a MPD thruster; B denotes the radial magnetic field and j x B denotes the azimuthal drift propelling the charged particles; in use on the website on the Electromagnetic Propulsion Systems page (Jahn & Choueiri, 2002).

Figure 9: Alternate cross section of the MPD thruster: J denotes the electric field, B denotes the magnetic field, and J x B denotes the Lorenz force and particle vector; in use on the webpage on the Electromagnetic Propulsion Systems page (Jordan, 2000).

Figure 10: A cross section of a resistojet thruster; used additionally on the Electric Propulsion and Electrothermal Propulsion Systems pages (Jordan, 2000).

Figure 11: Cross section diagram showing the operation of an arcjet thruster; in use on the webpage on the Electrothermal Propulsion Systems page (Jordan, 2000).

Figure 12: Diagram showing the operation of a VASIMR thruster; used additionally on the Electric Propulsion and Electrothermal Propulsion Systems pages (Ad Astra Rocket Company, n.d.).

Figure 13: A conceptual design for a fission fragment thruster. A indicates the exhaust nozzle on the thruster, B indicates the interior fragment confinement and radiofrequency bombardment chamber, C denotes the deceleration chamber for accelerated particles, d shows the confinement electromagnets, e indicates the radiofrequency coupler, and f is the individual radiofrequency antennae. In use on the webpage under the Nuclear Propulsion Systems and Direct Nuclear Thrust Propulsion Systems pages (Duckysmokton, Dusty plasma bed reactor, 2007).

Figure 14: A picture of a Hall Effect thruster currently in operation; used exclusively on webpage as a banner picture (Zickefoose, Rotter, & Morgan, 2009).

Figure 15: Artists rendering of an MPD thruster system in operation; in use exclusively on the webpage under the Electromagnetic Propulsion Systems page (LaPointe, Self-field MPD thruster, 2001).

Figure 16: A design showing the operation of a MPD propulsion system; in use exclusively on the webpage on the Electromagnetic Propulsion Systems page (Lucas, 2005).

Figure 17: A cross section showing the operation of a VASIMR propulsion system; in use exclusively on the webpage on the Electromagnetic Propulsion Systems page (NASA, 2003).

Figure 18: A diagram showing the operation of a VASIMR propulsion system; in use exclusively on the Electrothermal Propulsion Systems page of the webpage (Ad Astra Rocket Company, 2012).

Figure 19: A schematic showing a solid core active nuclear thermal propulsion system; in use exclusively on the webpage, under the Nuclear Propulsion Systems and Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Systems pages (NASA, 1970).

Figure 20: Diagram denoting the operation of an active nuclear thermal propulsion system; in use exclusively on the webpage, under the Nuclear Propulsion Systems and Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Systems pages (CommiM, 2007).

Figure 21: Artists conception of a fusion rocket en route to Mars; in use exclusively on the webpage, under the Nuclear Propulsion Systems and Direct Nuclear Thrust Propulsion Systems pages (University of Washington, 2013).

Figure 22: Artists rendering of a fission fragment production system for capture and expulsion; a is the fissile material on a disc, b, which impacts the production system denoted by c, and breaking into the fission fragments shown in d. In use exclusively on the website, under the Direct Nuclear Thrust Propulsion Systems page (Duckysmokton, Dusty plasma bed reactor, 2007).

Figure 23: Labeled diagram of an open gas core reactor active nuclear thermal propulsion system; in use exclusively on the website, under the Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Systems page (NASA, 2005).

Figure 25: Artists rendering of a solar sail operating in space; in use exclusively on the website, under the Alternate Propulsion Technologies and Methods page (Mirecki, 2011).

Figure 26: Artists concept of the use of a solar sail above the Earths surface; in use exclusively on the website, under the Alternate Propulsion Technologies and Methods page (NASA, 2011).

Figure 27: Photograph of the Carina Nebula in the Andromeda Galaxy; in use exclusively as the background for the website (NASA, 2003).

Figure 28: Picture of the Milky Way; in use exclusively as a banner on the website (Hallas, 2001).

You might also like