JOURNAL OF PROPULSION AND POWER

Vol. 29, No. 1, JanuaryFebruary 2013

Mass and Cost Model for Selecting Thruster Size

in Electric Propulsion Systems
Richard R. Hofer and Thomas M. Randolph
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91109

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on June 4, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34525

DOI: 10.2514/1.B34525
A model of system mass and life-cycle costs is used to determine the optimal number of thrusters for electric
propulsion systems. The model is generalized for application with most electric propulsion systems and then applied
to high-power Hall thruster systems in particular. Mass and cost models were constructed for individual thruster
strings using as inputs the number of active thrusters, the number of redundant thrusters, and the total system power.
Mass and cost are related through the launch cost of the propulsion-system mass, which unifies the optimization to a
single global parameter based on cost. Fault-tolerance and string cost are driving factors determining the optimum
thruster size for a given system-power level. After considering factors such as fault-tolerance, cost uncertainty,
complexity, ground-test-vacuum-facility limitations, previously demonstrated power capabilities, and possible
technology limitations, the development of two thrusters to flight status is suggested: a low-power model operating at
2050 kW per thruster to support missions up to 500 kW system power and the development of a high-power model
operating at 50100 kW per thruster to support missions up to 1 MW system power.

human spaceflight architecture proposed by Strange et al. [1]

envisions solar electric-propulsion (SEP) spacecraft operating at
power levels of several hundred kW to enable missions to near-Earth
asteroids (NEA), Phobos/Deimos, and Mars [28]. In the near term,
spacecraft with 200400 kW onboard enable a wide variety of NEA
targets. What thruster technologies and individual power per thruster
are appropriate for these spacecraft power levels? Answers to these
questions are influenced by a wide variety of factors, among them
being the maturity of available thruster technologies (has it ever
flown?), the scalability of the thruster technology with power at
constant specific impulse, system efficiency (thruster plus power
processing), throughput capability (life), power-throttling capability,
ground-test-vacuum-facility limitations (power and propellant
flow rate), power density (kWm2 ), specific mass (kgkW), and
(last but not least) life-cycle cost. Life-cycle costs are influenced
by a multitude of factors such as propellant type, ground-testing
requirements, system complexity (especially of the power processing),
reliance on exotic technologies (e.g., superconducting magnets),
operating voltages, and applicability to other markets such as other
NASA directorates, commercial industry, and the military. There
are a large number of electric-propulsion technologies that can
potentially meet the needs of specific human spaceflight applications.
Examples include Hall thrusters, ion thrusters, magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thrusters, field-reversed configuration (FRC) thrusters,
and pulsed-inductive thrusters (PIT). However, very few of these
technologies can be practically applied over multiple future-mission
scenarios. Among the universe of electric-propulsion technologies,
Hall thrusters have been identified as strong candidates for electric
path missions for a variety of reasons [1], chief among them being
their long flight history dating to 1970 [9], cost-effectiveness [9],
demonstrated scalability to individual power levels of at least 100 kW
operating on xenon [1012], demonstrated capability to achieve long
lifetimes [13,14], and ability to operate efficiently over a specific
impulse range (10003000 s) [15] that keeps trip times suited for
human missions. The purpose of this paper, though, is not to provide a
detailed trade amongst these various technologies. Hall thrusters are
selected here as an example for use in a generalized system model that
could equally be applied to other technologies. For a given system
power, what Hall-thruster power level is the correct choice based on
mass and cost considerations?
As will be shown, due to the impact of redundancy on the dry mass
of the propulsion system, there is significant mass benefit to carrying
the right number of electric thrusters on a spacecraft. At a given power
level, carrying too few thrusters causes the mass of redundant systems
to be an unreasonably high fraction of the total dry mass. Carrying too
many thrusters will cause the fixed masses that must be carried with

Nomenclature
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J
C
k
M
N
P

=
=
=
=
=
=

regression coefficients
cost
log
Gl  log
2
mass
number of thrusters
power

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

active thruster
cabling
gimbal
learning curve slope
electromagnet
redundant thruster
structure
string
system
tankage
thruster and gimbal
total
thruster
xenon

Subscripts
ac
cab
gim
l
mag
rd
s
str
sys
tank
tg
tot
thr
Xe

I.

Introduction

HE selection of electric-thruster power level is an important

consideration for technology programs supporting deep-space
human exploration due to the impact that this choice can have on
spacecraft payload capability and life-cycle cost. The electric path

Presented as Paper 2011-5518 at the Joint Propulsion Conference, San

Diego, CA, 31 July 201103 August 2011; received 14 December 2011;
revision received 7 May 2012; accepted for publication 16 July 2012;
published online 19 December 2012. Copyright 2012 by the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. The U.S. Government has a
royalty-free license to exercise all rights under the copyright claimed herein
for Governmental purposes. All other rights are reserved by the copyright
owner. Copies of this paper may be made for personal or internal use, on
condition that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright
Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include
the code 1533-3876/12 and $10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.
*Senior Engineer, Electric Propulsion Group, 4800 Oak Grove Dr., MS
125-109; richard.r.hofer@jpl.nasa.gov. Associate Fellow AIAA.

Project Systems Engineer, Mission Systems Concepts Group. Senior

Member AIAA.
166

167

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on June 4, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34525

HOFER AND RANDOLPH

each thruster string to become large. Somewhere between too few and
too many there exists an optimal number of thrusters at which the
electric propulsion (EP) system mass is at a minimum. Similar
arguments can be extended to the question of system cost where
development costs substitute for string redundancy and cost savings
may be realized through the production of multiple strings at lower
individual power levels.
To study this optimization we have generated a generic model to
determine the optimal number of thrusters for EP systems based on
mass and cost considerations. Implicit to the model is that the systems
are flight qualified for the required propellant throughput and that
other mission margins (e.g., power, duty cycle [16]) are handled
separately on a case-by-case basis. These considerations are
discussed at length in the literature and the interested reader is
referred to [9,1626] for further detail. Data from a number of flight
and proposed systems were collected and used to construct mass and
cost models for individual thruster strings using the number of active
thrusters, the number of redundant thrusters, and the total system
power to be divided between the active thruster strings as inputs. The
string models incorporate all of the major components in the
propulsion system: thruster, gimbals, power processing unit (PPU),
cabling, xenon feed system (XFS), tanks, and propellant. Although
the model is applied here to Hall-thruster systems operating at tens or
hundreds of kW, it is generally applicable to a wide variety of thruster
technologies and system power levels if the mass and cost inputs are
adjusted for specific applications.
A simpler version of the mass model presented here was originally
derived for gridded ion thruster systems being considered for the
Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO) project [27]. We have since added
the cost model and generalized them both to be applicable to most EP
systems. Mass and cost are related through the launch cost of the
propulsion-system mass. This unifies the optimization to a single
global parameter based on cost that provides guidance in selecting
thruster power level. The combined models are applied here to Hallthruster systems in particular due to the relevance of Hall thrusters to
human exploration of the solar system.
The purpose of this study is to inform the mission architects choice
of thruster power level in EP systems from the perspective of mass
and cost. The models are derived in the next section. Specific results
for the case of 2040 kW and 200400 kW system power levels are
then presented followed by results for systems operating up to 1 MW.
The results show that the flatness of the global cost function around
the optimum provides an opportunity to select thruster power level
based on additional considerations such as ground-test-facility
limitations. Factoring in these considerations, it is recommended that
2050 kW thrusters be developed to support systems operating up to
500 kW total power and 50100 kW thrusters be developed for
systems up to 1 MW.

II.

Electric Propulsion System Modeling

A. Mass Model

A generic power and propulsion system consists of three major

subsystems: power generation, power management and distribution
(PMAD), and propulsion. Our focus here is with the propulsion
subsystem that must accept power from the PMAD and convert it to
thrust. In doing so, we neglect any dependencies between these
systems that may impact the specific technologies selected for a given
mission. This is justified by focusing on optimizations for a given
total power level to the propulsion system. Any consideration of how
these optimizations scale with power then implicitly assumes a
common set of technologies. In this study, we will primarily focus on
Hall-thruster-based propulsion systems using xenon propellant and
conventional PPU designs. Xenon is adopted because it is the only
propellant currently used in flight systems, but it should be noted that
propellants such as argon [28], krypton [29], magnesium [30,31],
iodine [32], and bismuth [3335] are feasible. A brief look at the
impact of direct drive PPUs (DDU) will be discussed later. A DDU
essentially operates a thruster directly off a high-voltage solar array.
This eliminates the need for a dc-dc converter between the solar array
and the plasma discharge, significantly reducing the DDU mass

relative to a PPU. Additional details on the impact of a DDU on

spacecraft performance is provided by Brophy et al. [4].
The mass of the propulsion system is expressed in terms of three
key variables: total system input power Psys, the number of active
thrusters N ac used to process Psys , and the number of redundant
thruster strings N rd . Redundant thruster strings are used only in the
event of a failure. Robotic missions are typically single-fault tolerant
(N rd  1). Human missions may require double or triple fault
tolerance. The total number of thruster strings is
N tot  N ac  N rd  total number of thruster strings

(1)

and the power supplied to each thruster string is

Pthr  Psys N ac  discharge power per active thruster string
(2)
Throughout this paper the terms thruster power or input power refer to
the power consumed by the plasma discharge (i.e., the discharge
power) of a single thruster and do not include the power for the
electromagnets or the PPU efficiency. Strictly speaking then, the
system power should be modified by the PPU (Pthr Pppu ) and
electromagnet efficiency (1-Pmag Pthr ), which can be expected to be
about 95% and 98%, respectively. Thus, for a 300 kW system, the
total power necessary from the spacecraft power system would be
3000.950.98  322 kW. We chose to use discharge power
because it is a fundamental scaling parameter for Hall thrusters and
further, our choice of discharge power or total power has no influence
on our choice of thruster power level in this study.
Although many EP systems have been launched with different
fault-tolerance architectures, the broad consensus of the electricpropulsion technical community has moved towards N  1; 2; 3
thruster/PPU/XFS strings for primary propulsion applications
[9,1626]. Here we adopt this fault-tolerance architecture by
assuming that each thruster string is independent, consistent with the
system architecture proposed for Hall thrusters in [9]. The major
components of a thruster string depicted in Fig. 1 include the thruster,
gimbal, XFS, and PPU. The XFS is composed of the high-pressure
propellant management assembly (PMA) and the low-pressure xenon
flow controllers (XFC). Propellant tanks are the only shared
component of the propulsion system.
This fault-tolerance architecture has developed due to failure
modes related to the required high-voltage power processing that are
not present in chemical propulsion systems such as arcing, thermal/
electrical component interactions, and grounding. Many of these
failure modes require block redundancy of the thruster/PPU/XFS
strings to avoid failure propagation from one thruster to another. Fault
protection strategies involve redundancies at different system levels
from subsystem to assembly, component, and even part levels. At the
electric-propulsion-system level, the thruster/PPU/XFS strings are
essentially treated as the appropriate component level for redundancy

Xenon Tank

PMA

XFC

Gimbal
To Power
Distribution

PPU

To S/C
Computer

PMA = Propellant Management Assembly

XFC = Xenon Flow Controllers
PPU = Power Processing Unit

Fig. 1

Command & Telemetry

Power
Xenon Propellant

Major elements of a Hall-thruster string [9].

168

HOFER AND RANDOLPH

Mthr 
N tot 
Athr Pthr  Bthr 


N ac  N rd Athr
Psys N ac   Bthr 

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on June 4, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34525

Fig. 2

The regression was constrained to a zero y-intercept because,

otherwise, the scatter in the data resulted in a negative thruster mass at
zero input power. Because this study is concerned primarily with
thrusters operating in excess of 20 kW per thruster, the behavior of
Eq. (3) at low power does not significantly affect our results. Table 1
compiles all of the coefficients (Athr , Bthr , etc.) used in the various
component submodels for both mass and cost.
Gimbal mass is shown as the ratio of gimbal mass to thruster mass
in Fig. 3 for flight ion and Hall thrusters applicable to NASA
missions. The data is sourced from Moog and NASA systems.
Relatively few examples exist, but we note that the gimbal
requirements are similar for both Hall and ion thrusters. From the
figure, we observe that the gimbal is 50% of the thruster mass.
Discussions with gimbal vendors indicate that this relationship will
continue as thruster power levels grow to several tens of kW. The
gimbal mass is then expressed as a fraction of the thruster mass given
above in Eq. (3). Further, because it may be advantageous to only
gimbal a portion of the total thrusters in the entire propulsion system,
we will include a factor fgim that accounts for this possibility. The
gimbal mass is then

Thruster mass versus discharge power.

of this system element. EP systems have not yet flown with humans
onboard; however, in our view the proposed fault-tolerance
architecture meets both the requirements of human missions and
appropriate practices for EP systems.
The dependence of thruster mass with power level is shown in
Fig. 2. The data was compiled from existing flight and experimental
thrusters up to 50 kW made by Aerojet, Busek, Fakel, Pratt &
Whitney, and NASA. Discussions with vendors and our own analysis
indicated an expectation that thruster mass scales linearly with power.
Linear regression was applied to the data. Coefficients from the
regression were used to construct an equation for the total mass of all
the thrusters in the propulsion system given by
Table 1

Mass

Cost

Name
(subscript)
Thruster
(thr)
Gimbal
(gim)
PPU (ppu)
DDU (ddu)
XFS (xfs)
Cabling
(cab)
Structural
(s)
Tankage
(tank)
Xenon
throughput
(xe)
String Cost
(str), 2X
String Cost
(str), 3X
String Cost
(str), 4X
Gimbal
Cost
Fraction
(gim)
Learning
Curve
Slope (l)
NRERE
Ratio (nre)
Xenon
propellant
(xe)
Launch
cost
(launch)

(3)

Mgim  fgim Dgim Mthr

(4)

A combined equation for the thruster and gimbal mass (tg) is obtained
first by combining the coefficients as

Coefficients used in the mass and cost models. Nominal values are shown

A
(kgkWstring)
2.4254

B
(kgstring)
0

C (kg)

D
E
(-) ($M)

F ($M)

f (-)

G (-)

H
(Mkg)

0.5

1.7419
0.35

0.06778

4.654
1.9
3.2412
0.7301

4.5189

I
J
(kgkW) (Mkg)

Basis of estimate

BPT-4000, NSTAR,
NEXT
Various Hall thrusters
Brophy et al. [4]
JIMO, Hall thrusters
JIMO, Hall thrusters

0.26

JPL practice

0.04

Dawn xenon tank [38]

100

BPT-4000

3.4588

0.34837

Engineering estimate

2.8287

0.51658

Engineering estimate

2.4671

0.63301

Engineering estimate

0.08

Engineering estimate

0.85

Aerospace industry
average

1.5

Typical value

0.1

0.01

Avg. xenon cost of

1 Mt and BPT-4000
throughput (kgkW)
Space shuttle,
commercial launch
vehicles

Various Hall thrusters

169

HOFER AND RANDOLPH

other proposed programs (JIMO and various Hall-thruster mission

proposals developed at JPL since 2006) [27,36,37]. The scaling of the
cabling mass is given by
Mcab 
N ac  N rd Acab
Psys N ac   Bcab 

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on June 4, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34525

Fig. 3 Ratio of gimbal mass to thruster mass for flight-ion and Hall
thrusters applicable to NASA missions.

Atg 
1  fgim Dgim Athr

Btg 
1  fgim Dgim Bthr

(5)

then combining Eq. (3) and (4) give

Mtg  Mthr  Mgim

1  fgim Dgim 
N ac  N rd Athr
Psys N ac   Bthr 

N ac  N rd Atg
Psys N ac   Btg 

(6)

Because the regression for the thruster scaling was constrained to

zero mass at zero power, the same is true for the gimbal. Although the
fixed thruster mass can be quite small, a gimbal would not be
expected to have a nonzero mass at zero power. However, very small
thrusters are more likely to not be gimbaled at all, so the accuracy of
Eq. (6) is not expected to be adversely impacted by our approach even
for thrusters of just a few tens of W.
PPU mass versus string power level is shown in Fig. 4 using data
from Aerojet, Busek, and Loral. Discussions with vendors indicate
that PPU mass is expected to scale linearly with power using current
design approaches. Thermal management in flight systems is
currently passive. Deviations from the linear trend could result if
active schemes are employed that would be expected to improve the
kgkW scaling at high power. Further, the use of a DDU could
considerably reduce the power-processing mass. A DDU scaling
based on the one given by Brophy et al. [4] is also listed in Table 1.
Under the present assumptions the mass of a conventional PPU is
given by
MPPU 
N ac  N rd APPU
Psys N ac   BPPU 

(7)

Xenon flow systems currently used in Hall thrusters can be modified

for specific range of flow rates with little or no impact on the mass of
the flow system [25,3840]. The XFS mass here includes all of
the components of the system such as high-pressure regulator,
proportional-flow control valves, pressure transducers, thermocouples, latch valves, services valves, tubing/fittings, etc. Spacequalified parts from Moog, Taber, and others are used in the mass
estimate. The XFS mass is expressed solely as a function of the
number of thruster strings and is given by
MXFS 
N ac  N rd BXFS  CXFS

(9)

Propellant and tankage mass are computed based on the throughput

capability of Hall thrusters and a tankage fraction typical of xenon
tanks [38]. Qualification testing has demonstrated a 100 kgkW
capability, but this may be a lower bound based on magneticshielding technology that may result in throughput capability two to
ten times higher [13,14]. For this study, the lower bound is used in
order to be consistent with demonstrated capability. The propellant
mass is given by
MXe  I Xe Psys

(10)

where the coefficient IXe is equal to 100 kgkW as shown in Table 1.

Equation (10) assumes that the throughput capability of Hall thrusters
is independent of power level. The tank mass is then expressed in
terms of the propellant mass through a tankage fraction and is given by
Mtank  ftank MXe  ftank I Xe Psys

(11)

The xenon tank used on Dawn, which stores 425 kg of xenon and has
a mass of 19 kg, is used to estimate the tankage fraction [38]. Under
the present assumptions note that tankage and propellant mass
are independent of thruster size, so they do not affect the mass
optimization. Viewed another way, this is simply a statement that
regardless of thruster size, the mission will need to process a fixed
amount of propellant for a given set of requirements.
Equations (6) through (11) are then combined to find the total
propulsion system mass given by
Msys 
1  fs 
Mtg  MPPU  MXFS  Mcab  Mtan k 

1  fs 

N tot f
Atg  APPU  Acab 
Psys N ac   Btg
 BPPU  BXFS  Bcab g  CXFS 
1  ftank I Xe Psys 

If a DDU is considered, the Appu and Bppu coefficients in Eq. (7) are
substituted with the Addu and Bddu coefficients shown in Table 1.
A scaling for the mass of the high-voltage cabling was determined
from Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) flight programs that used ion
thrusters (Deep Space 1 and Dawn) as well as mass estimates from

(8)

(12)

where a structural fraction fs has been included to account for those

elements necessary to integrate the propulsion system with the
spacecraft bus.
It is illustrative to compute the total string mass for an individual
thruster string. This is shown as a function of power level in Fig. 5
(top), excluding structure, tankage, and propellant. That is, Fig. 5
plots the string mass as
Mstr
Psys  Pthr ; N rd  0; N ac  1
 Mtg  MPPU  MXFS  Mcab

Fig. 4

PPU mass versus discharge power.

(13)

The mass predicted by Eq. (13) is within 3% of a BPT-4000 string as it

might be implemented on a NASA mission [9]. Also included as the
bottom plot in Fig. 5 is the string specific mass, expressed in kgkW.
String-specific power is very high at low power because there is a
minimum mass required to accommodate all of the components
regardless of power level. The use of miniaturized and/or simplified
components could decrease the specific mass at low power, but our
model is not intended to capture this possibility. The string-specific
mass approaches a fixed level of 5.5 kgkW at high-power using a
PPU. Note that improvements to the specific mass may be realized

170

HOFER AND RANDOLPH

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on June 4, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34525

Fig. 6 ROM RE cost of a thruster string given by Eq. (14) versus string
power level with all strings gimbaled.

3) For every 10 times increase in thruster power, the cost will

double. This trend is based on prior experience for systems operating
less than 10 kW. To account for the uncertainty of extrapolating this
experience to systems operating at tens or hundreds of kW, a tripling
or quadrupling of cost with 10 times power increases will also be
considered. If a 5 kW system is $8 million, then a 50 kW system
would fall in the range of $1632 million (24 times).
4) Gimbals are approximately 8% of the system cost, as based on
prior experience for systems operating less than 10 kW. This is
included to account for the effects of hard-mounting some fraction of
the thrusters in the system [see Eq. (4)].
The resulting cost function, shown in Fig. 6 with coefficients in
Table 1, is given by
str
Cstr 
Estr  Fstr PG
thr 1
1 f gim Ggim 

Fig. 5 Top: Mass of a single thruster string versus input power using
either a PPU or a DDU. Bottom: Specific mass of a single thruster string
versus input power using either a PPU or a DDU. Both figures exclude
structure, tankage, and propellant.

through technology advances (e.g., direct drive PPUs, lightweight

thrusters, etc.). For example, if a DDU is used in lieu of a
conventional PPU (see Table 1), the specific mass at very high power
approaches 4.1 kgkW, a reduction of 25%.
B. Cost Model

In this section, we describe a cost model for the propulsion system

that includes the effects of producing multiple units of the same
thruster. Mass and cost are related through the launch cost of the
propulsion system mass. This unifies the optimization to a single
global parameter based on cost that provides guidance in selecting
thruster power level. All costs reported here are strictly rough order of
magnitude (ROM) intended to account for variations between power
level (i.e., relative comparisons) and should not be relied on for
budgeting or planning purposes [21].
The first step in constructing a cost model for the entire system is to
determine a scaling for the cost of an individual string. The cost of an
individual string is the sum of the Non-Recurring Expense (NRE)
cost and recurring expense (RE) cost. NRE is the cost of developing
and qualifying the thruster system for flight. NRE costs are amortized
over the total number of thrusters produced and will be discussed
more next. RE is the cost of procuring the string components
(thruster, gimbal, PPU, cabling, XFS, tank) and the flight-system
engineering to integrate the system on a spacecraft. We constructed a
model of the string RE cost as a function of thruster power level using
the following assumptions:
1) The cost of a 5 kW system is of the order of $8 million [21].
2) The minimum cost of a system is $2 million.

(14)

The string cost includes the component procurement and flight

system integration. For every 10X increase in power, 2X, 3X, and 4X
increases in cost are shown. Due to the uncertainty implicit to the cost
curves shown in Fig. 6, the cost reduction from the use of a DDU
versus the more expensive PPU is not yet incorporated. The effects of
all of our assumptions on the total system cost will be considered in
later sections.
NRE costs can significantly vary depending on the technology
involved. Relatively mature technologies like ion and Hall thrusters
can reasonably be expected to scale proportionally to prior
experience. New technologies for which there is little or no
experience in developing flight systems (e.g., MPD, PIT, FRC) could
be substantially higher. Here, we adopt a 6040 relationship between
the NRE and RE cost to fly the first thruster. This is expressed in terms
of individual string cost as
CNRE  GNRE Cstr

(15)

That is, the NRE is one and a half times higher than the cost to fly the
first thruster. This ratio is commonly used in technology cost
estimation and is of the correct magnitude based on prior experience
in NASA developing EP flight systems [41,42]. Note that the NRE
grows with power level due to its dependence on the string cost given
by Eq. (14), which we expect because it seems reasonable that larger
thrusters are more expensive to develop. In order for this relationship
to be a constant value, though, requires that there are no significant
differences in the technology as the power level increases. At least for
Hall thrusters, we expect this to be a reasonable assumption up to
string power levels of at least 50 kW.
To account for the decrease in average unit cost when multiple
thrusters are produced, we adopt the Wright learning curve model
[42,43]. Wrights model, first developed to model the cost savings of
producing aircraft, has been shown to be generally applicable to
industrial production processes, regardless of the technology
considered. The key factor in a Wright learning curve model is the

171

HOFER AND RANDOLPH

learning curve slope, which captures the amount of learning that may
be acquired during multiple unit production through process
improvements, economies of scale, etc. Learning curve slopes Gl
generally vary between 70% (excess capability to learn) to 100%
(no learning possible). A common value used in the Aerospace
industry is 85% [42] and will be used here. In the Wright model, the
average cost per unit of producing N tot thruster strings is given by
hCRE i  Cstr N ktot

(16)

where the exponent variable k is

k  log
Gl  log
2

(17)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on June 4, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34525

The total RE cost of a system consisting of N tot thruster strings is

given by
CRE  hCRE iN tot  Cstr N k1
tot

(18)

Figure 7 plots the average unit cost and total cost relative to the first
unit produced as a function of the number units produced from the
Wright model with a learning curve slope of 85% (k  0.234).
As more units are produced, the average cost declines and the total
cost increases. For example, for 10 units the average cost has dropped
to 0.58 per unit and the total cost is 5.8, a savings of 42%.
Propellant costs are estimated based on specific throughput.
Market conditions can substantially affect the cost of xenon, but the
average cost over the last twenty years has been about $1 million per
1000 kg ($1 million/t). This cost is then related to the specific
throughput (IXe  100 kgkW) in Eq. (10). Xenon costs are then
expressed in terms of the system power as
CXe  H Xe Peye

(19)

Similar to the discussion of the propellant mass in the previous

section, because we base the xenon cost on the system power, the
xenon cost is a constant factor in the system cost so does not enter in to
the global optimization for selecting thruster size.The system cost is
computed by combining Eqs. (14), (15), (18), and (19) to give
Csys  CNRE  CRE  CXe  Cstr
GNRE  N s1
tot   CXe

(20)

In order to relate mass and cost, the final element of the cost model is
to express the system mass in terms of the cost to launch the
propulsion system to low Earth orbit (LEO). The launch cost is then

Fig. 7 Average RE per unit cost and total RE cost of N units versus
number of units produced based on the Wright Learning Curve.

Claunch  Jlaunch Msys

(21)

where the system mass is given by Eq. (12). The total cost of getting
the propulsion system on orbit is then
Ctot  Csys  Claunch

(22)

The value of the specific launch cost J launch then acts as a weighting
that scales the relative importance of the mass contribution and the
system cost to the total cost. Lighter systems will have lower launch
costs such that the optimization favors system costs. Estimates of
the specific launch cost vary significantly depending on how one
accounts for the life cycle costs of a launch vehicle (of course, the cost
to the taxpayer always includes the life cycle costs). In the case of
NASA missions, the space shuttle is a suitable analog for the heavy
lift launch vehicles that multihundred kW missions will require.
Space shuttle LEO launch cost estimates vary approximately by a
factor of five, from $10,000 to $50,000 per kg [44,45]. At best, the
commercial heavy launch-vehicle market can currently deliver about
$5,000 per kg [45]. SpaceX is targeting a range of $1,500 to
$2,400 per kg for the Falcon 9 Heavy [46]. Thus, heavy lift launch
costs, based on actual and projected costs, vary by over an order of
magnitude from $1,500 to $50,000 per kg to LEO. Our baseline value
will assume $10,000 per kg to reflect on one hand, the cost of
launching government payloads, and on the other hand, trends in the
commercial launch-services market aimed at reducing launch costs.
The sensitivity of this selection on the results will be considered in the
next section.

III.

Results

Results from the mass and cost model are presented here for the
case of 2040 kW and 200400 kW system power levels. Optimums
are found for arbitrary system powers.
A. Twenty to Forty kW System Power Levels

In preparation for much larger systems, a technology

demonstration mission that flies a high-power EP system is being
considered by NASA. Requirements for this mission are still being
developed, but there are at least two major approaches relevant to the
current discussion. In the first, the mission flies a subscale SEP
system that matches the number of active thrusters projected for the
full-scale system. In the second, the individual thruster power level
projected for the full-scale system is flown in the demonstration. Both
approaches have advantages and a hybrid approach may ultimately
be adopted. In this section, we present results for possible technology
demonstrators in the 2040 kW range. Because the mission is robotic
only single-fault tolerance (N rd  1) is considered. All of the strings
are gimbaled and use conventional PPUs. The two times string cost
curve shown in Fig. 6 is used. The mass and cost of xenon are
excluded because these are invariant with the number of active
thrusters and therefore do not affect the optimization. Using the
values in Table 1, if the full throughput capability of the propulsion
system is demonstrated, the xenon mass and cost to support
2040 kW systems would be 2,0004,000 kg and $24 million,
respectively.
Figure 8 shows the propulsion-system dry mass versus the number
of active thrusters in a single-fault tolerant system with all thrusters
gimbaled. Over 2040 kW system power, the minimum mass system
is at four to five active strings or thruster power levels of 58 kW.
As will be a common feature of the results of these models, the curve
around the optimum is relatively flat, providing considerable latitude
in selecting the thruster power level. For example, at 30 kW system
power, the mass model optimizes at four active thrusters operating
at 7.5 kW each. However, any selection over 211 active thrusters
(2.715 kW/thruster) is within 10% of this minimum mass.
Figure 9 shows the cost of the propulsion system, while Fig. 10
shows the total costs (launch plus system). Because the relative size
of the launch costs are much less than the system cost, both system
and total cost optimize at two active thrusters over 2040 kW system

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on June 4, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34525

172

HOFER AND RANDOLPH

Fig. 8 Propulsion-system dry mass versus number of active thrusters at

system power levels of 2040 kW.

Fig. 11 Propulsion-system dry mass versus number of active thrusters

at system power levels of 200400 kW.

B. Two Hundred to Four Hundred kW System Power Levels

Fig. 9 Propulsion-system cost versus number of active thrusters at

system power levels of 2040 kW.

power levels. The total cost is within 10% of the minimum for any
selection of one to five active thrusters at all power levels. If the
demonstration mission is flown instead without a redundant thruster
(N rd  0), flying a single thruster is optimum. Overall, the results
show that the total cost of the propulsion system for system power
levels of 2040 kW are affected by no more than 10% for any
selection of one to five active thrusters.

Fig. 10 Total cost (launch plus system) versus number of active

thrusters at system power levels of 2040 kW.

The electric path described by Strange et al. [1] supporting human

exploration to near-Earth asteroids requires somewhere between 200
and 400 kW for the SEP system. In this section, we present model
results for propulsion systems in this range of power levels. Doublefault tolerance (N rd  2) is assumed because the system supports
human missions. All of the strings are gimbaled and use conventional
PPUs. The two times string cost curve shown in Fig. 6 is used. The
mass and cost of xenon is excluded because these are invariant with
the number of active thrusters and therefore do not affect the
optimization. Using the values in Table 1, if the full throughput
capability of the thrusters is required, the xenon mass and cost to
support 200400 kW systems would be 20,00040,000 kg and
$2040 million, respectively.
Figure 11 shows the propulsion-system dry mass versus the
number of active thrusters in a double-fault tolerant system with all
thrusters gimbaled. Over 200400 kW system power, the minimummass system is at 1622 active strings or thruster power levels of only
1318 kW. Similar to the results presented above, the mass curve is
quite flat around the optimum, which allows for a wide selection of
thruster power levels with only small impacts on system mass. For
example, at 300 kW system power, the mass model optimizes at 19
active thrusters operating at 16 kWeach. However, any selection over
674 thrusters (450 kW) is within 10% of this minimum mass and
any selection over 851 thrusters (638 kW) is within 5% of the
minimum mass.
Figure 12 illustrates the impact of fault-tolerance on the specific
mass of the propulsion system for a total power of 300 kW. Structure,
tankage, and propellant are excluded in the figure. Fault-tolerance
significantly increases the specific mass of the propulsion system,
increasing the optimum number of thrusters at which the system mass
is a minimum. For example, if the number of active thrusters is one,
the effects of carrying one, two, or three redundant thrusters is to
double, triple or quadruple the specific mass of the system. If instead
the number of active thrusters is increased, the redundancy-mass
penalty is spread amongst all of the strings, lowering the systemspecific mass. However, because there is a fixed mass associated with
each string, the benefits of spreading the redundant-string mass over
all the strings is eventually balanced by the fixed-mass penalty of
each additional string. This balance between the redundant strings
and the fixed mass of each string is why there is an optimum number
of thrusters for a given system power as given by Eq. (12).
Figure 13 shows the cost of the propulsion system while Fig. 14
shows the total costs (launch plus system) for 200400 kW systems.
Unlike the 2040 kW systems, the launch costs are now on par with
the system cost such that the total cost shifts towards the optimum
based on mass alone. The system cost curve optimizes to three active

HOFER AND RANDOLPH

173

range further, we consider the scaling of the optimum thruster power

level up to 1 MW system power level in the next section.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on June 4, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34525

C. Optimum Thruster Power Levels for Systems up to 1 MW Power

Fig. 12 Specific mass of the propulsion system versus number of active

thrusters and number of redundant thrusters at a total power of 300 kW.

Figure 15 shows the total-cost-optimized power per active thruster

(top) and number of active strings (bottom) versus system input
power. The two times string cost curve shown in Fig. 6 is used.
At 1 MW system power, the total-cost-optimized power per active
thruster is only 143 kW and the number of active thrusters is seven.
Figure 16 demonstrates the effects of redundancy on the total-costoptimized power per active thruster versus system input power.
Increasing the number of redundant strings pushes the system to
lower power per thruster. If human missions ultimately impose a
triple-fault tolerance on the system, the total-cost-optimized thruster
power level is 125 kW at 1 MW system power. For single-fault
tolerant systems, the total-cost-optimized thruster power level is
250 kW at 1 MW system power. Thus for single- to triple-fault
tolerant systems at 1 MW, the total-cost-optimized thruster power
level falls in the range of 125250 kW. However, over this range of
fault-tolerance (N rd  13), a system of ten, 100 kW thrusters is less
than 2% more expensive than the optimum value. Under these
conditions, the development of thrusters up to only 100 kW per
thruster would seem to be sufficient to support human exploration for
the next several decades.
D. Sensitivity Analysis

Although the inputs to the mass and cost model are numerous, only
a few significantly impact the results. Redundancy has already been
discussed and is the primary driver towards a larger number of
thrusters under all conditions. The other potential drivers are the fixed

Fig. 13 Propulsion-system cost versus number of active thrusters at

system power levels of 200400 kW.

thrusters over 200400 kW, while the total cost curve optimizes for
four or five thrusters. The total cost curve is within 10% of the
minimum for any selection of 212 thrusters (27150 kW) at 300 kW
and any selection over three to nine thrusters (33100 kW) is within
5% of the minimum cost. These rather large ranges provide
considerable latitude in selecting thruster power level. To narrow the

Fig. 14 Total cost (launch plus system) versus number of active

thrusters at system power levels of 200400 kW.

Fig. 15 Total cost (launch plus system) optimized power per active thruster
(top) and number of active strings (bottom) versus system input power.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on June 4, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34525

174

HOFER AND RANDOLPH

Fig. 16 Effects of redundancy on the total cost optimized power per

active thruster versus system input power.

masses per string, using a DDU versus a PPU, the launch costs, and
the string costs. Below, we consider the relative impacts of each of
these factors for systems in the range of 200400 kW.
The fixed mass per string is expressed as the B and C
coefficients in Table 1. Even if the fixed mass is increased by 100%,
the mass- and cost-optimized number of active thrusters is only
weakly affected for 200400 kW systems. This is the main reason
that the minima of these curves are so flat, especially at high system
power. That is, the fixed mass does not substantially affect the system
mass unless a very large number of thrusters are included.
Although using a DDU versus a PPU has the potential to
substantially reduce the power-processing mass, the effect on the
mass or total-cost-optimized results is to shift the optima to a lower
number of thrusters by only one unit for system powers in the
200400 kW range. Because the DDU reduces the fixed mass further,
using a DDU also flattens the mass or total cost curves further near
their respective minimums. Brophy et al. [4] also points out that the
impact of a DDU is felt beyond the propulsion system because the
higher efficiency of the DDU can reduce the solar array size slightly,
reduce the waste heat, and be less expensive to develop. Power
processing is a major cost driver implicit to our estimates of the
development and procurement costs. However, as noted previously,
the uncertainty in the cost models shown in Fig. 6 is such that making
these distinctions requires additional analysis.
Launch costs can play an important role in establishing the total
cost optimization, but only if the two times string cost curve is an
accurate model. The specific launch cost acts as a weighting function
that determines whether the launch cost or the system cost dominates
the total cost optimization. If the two times cost prevails for
200400 kW systems, variations in the specific launch cost over
$1,50050,000 per kilogram strongly affect the optimization. For
example, for the nominal two times cost curve and double-fault
tolerant systems with 300 kW, the total cost optimized results are
three 100 kW thrusters for a 1; 500kg launch cost, five 60 kW
thrusters at 10; 000kg, and eight 38 kW thrusters at 50; 000kg.
If the four times cost prevails though, launch costs play almost no role
in the optimization, changing the optimum string power by only a few
kilowatts for system powers of 200400 kW.
Lastly, Fig. 17 shows the total-cost-optimized power per active
thruster versus system power for the two, three, and four times cost
curves shown in Fig. 6. As discussed in the previous section, even for
the nominal two times cost curve, the optimum thruster size is still
only about 150 kW for 1 MW systems. If the three or four times cost
curves prevail, 50100 kW thrusters are sufficient for any power level
up to 1 MW. Thus, although the string cost model can strongly affect
the optimization of a given power level, these results still show that
relatively low thruster power levels are sufficient for missions
spanning a few hundred kW up to a MW.

Fig. 17 Mass and cost optimized power per active thruster versus
system power for different cost curves.

IV.

Discussion

Our results imply that Hall thrusters capable of operation over a

range of 20100 kW will easily support missions from a few kW up to
1 MW. The development of perhaps two thrusters to flight status
would be required. A low-power model operating at 2050 kW to
support missions up to 500 kW and the development of a high-power
model operating at 50100 kW to support missions up to 1 MW.
Given the insensitivity of thruster power level though, other
considerations affecting our choice can be weighed by the mission
architect in this selection. Important considerations not yet addressed
include system complexity, ground-test-vacuum-facility requirements, and technology limitations.
The mass and cost models are in general quite flat near the minima.
This results in a surprisingly high number of thrusters being either
optimal or near-optimal (within 510%), especially at power levels of
several hundred kW. Complexity was a factor that has not yet been
introduced to our model. This was because we do not expect it to
present any more than 5% impact on mass and cost. However,
complexity may affect reliability, and more work is needed to
consider how to quantify these influences in the model. Systems up to
10 thrusters do not seem unreasonable, however, which is consistent
with selecting 100 kW thrusters to support 1 MW power systems.
The limitations of ground test facilities to accommodate the high
flow rates and thermal loads of high-power EP systems are critical
considerations during the technology development process [47].
Existing facilities in the U.S. are suitable for Hall thrusters operating
at several tens of kilowatts, but will be stressed for operation greater
than 100 kW. If new facilities are needed, this capital cost must
certainly be factored in to our analysis. However, new ground test
facilities would have to cost over $100 million in order to
significantly impact the optimization for multi-hundred kilowatt
systems. The prospects for such capital expenditures look
exceedingly dim in the present era of fiscal austerity, providing
further support for investing in thrusters that existing facilities,
perhaps with modest improvements, can accommodate. Again, this
points us towards thrusters operating at less than 100 kW.
Technology limitations are additional considerations in selecting
thruster power level that are not captured in the model. Although
there are a large number of EP technologies that can potentially meet
the needs of specific applications, there are very few that can be
practically developed for flight applications and be applied over
multiple future mission scenarios. Among the universe of EP
technologies, our trade studies have shown that Hall thrusters are the
strongest candidates for scaling to the thrusters sizes needed to
support systems up to at least 1 MW. Although the practical limit for
Hall thrusters is not yet well-established, individual thrusters have
been demonstrated up to 100 kW operating on xenon [1012] and
140 kW operating on bismuth [33,48]. High-power Hall thrusters

175

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on June 4, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34525

HOFER AND RANDOLPH

were studied extensively by NASA in the early 2000s and design

studies were conducted for thrusters operating up to 150 kW
[1012,4954]. Two possible limitations on thruster size are the
ability to maintain an adequate magnetic field topography across
large channel widths [52] and the ability to manufacture largediameter ceramic discharge chambers capable of surviving launch
loads. The emergence of nested-channel Hall thrusters (NHT)
[8,49,50,5558] has provided an alternate development path for 50 to
multihundred kilowatt thrusters by circumventing channel-width and
diameter limitations with the use of multiple nested channels. NHTs
also have a high potential to achieve much lower specific mass than
single-channel devices and high throttling capability (10005000 s
specific impulse and power throttling of 2001) [50,55]. The benefits
of NHTs are likely to begin to pay off somewhere in the 50100 kW
range. Although the upper limit of NHT power level is not yet known,
it is worth noting that NHTs operating at 200500 kW would be
suited for systems operating at 25 MW.
Although we doubt that systems consisting of more than ten
thrusters would ever be flown, it is interesting to consider the
implications of systems with a large number of thrusters. Spacecraft
with many thrusters would have considerably higher control
authority than those operating with just a few. This can allow the EP
system to provide not only primary propulsion but attitude control as
well [59]. Control authority can also be traded with mass and cost by
fixing some of the thrusters instead of gimbaling. Fixing half of the
thrusters in a 300 kW system would decrease the dry mass by 6% and
the cost by 4%. Clusters of thrusters certainly present new challenges
in spacecraft integration with regards to launch-vehicle packaging,
thermal integration, and plume interactions. However, it bears
pointing out that none of these systems would be integrated on any
spacecraft that would be considered small. There is ample real estate
to accommodate the thrusters for these high-power missions. Many
studies have also been conducted on the effects of clustering on
thruster operation, plume formation, etc. [6064]. None of these
studies have revealed any significant issues with thruster-to-thruster
interactions. We conclude based on these basic considerations that
clusters up to at least ten thrusters are unlikely to present significant
issues and may in fact prove beneficial to the operation of the
spacecraft.

V.

large range provides considerable latitude in selecting thruster power

level. To narrow the range further, we also considered the scaling
of the optimum thruster power level up to 1 MW system power levels.
At 1 MW system power and a fault-tolerance range of one to three
redundant thrusters, we find the total-cost-optimized power per active
thruster to range from 250 kW for single-fault tolerance to
125 kW for triple-fault tolerance. However, over this same faulttolerance range, a system of 10, 100 kW thrusters is less than 2%
more expensive than the optimum. After factoring in additional
considerations such as complexity, ground-test-vacuum-facility
limitations, previously demonstrated power capabilities, and possible
technology limitations, we conclude that thrusters operating less than
100 kW are strong candidates for supporting human exploration
missions operating at several hundred kW.
The relatively low individual thruster power levels suggested by
these considerations is a powerful guide to directing technology
investments in high-power EP systems. Hall thrusters capable of
operation over a range of 20100 kW could support missions from
20 kW up to 1 MW. The development of perhaps two thrusters to
flight status would be required. A low power model operating at
2050 kW to support missions up to 500 kWand the development of a
high power model operating at 50100 kW to support missions up to
1 MW. The extensibility of Hall-thruster technology to even higher
power levels may also be realized with nested Hall thrusters.
Although a practical upper limit of NHT power level has not yet been
established, NHTs operating at 200500 kW are likely possible and
would be suited for systems operating at 25 MW. Based on these
results, it is expected that Hall-thruster technology will be sufficient
to support human exploration for the next several decades.

Acknowledgments
This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
California Institute of Technology, under a contract with NASA.
Thanks to John Brophy, Dan Goebel, Steve Snyder, and John Ziemer
for their input and assistance during the formulation of this paper.
Special thanks to Ryan Dougherty for his work during the Jupiter Icy
Moons Orbiter project developing the mass model for ion thrusters.
The inputs provided for the mass model from the various vendors
mentioned in the study as well as Hani Kamhawi at NASA Glenn
Research Center (GRC) is greatly appreciated.

Conclusions

A generalized model of system-mass and life-cycle costs of

electric propulsion systems has been applied to the particular case of
high-power Hall thruster systems due to their relevance to human
exploration of the solar system. Mass and cost are related through the
launch cost of the propulsion-system mass. This unifies the
optimization to a single global parameter based on cost that provides
guidance in selecting thruster power level. The model is populated
with data from a number of flight and proposed systems with the
number of active and redundant thrusters and the total system power
being the primary inputs. Fault tolerance and string cost are driving
factors determining the optimum thruster size for a given system
power level. The flatness of the global cost function around the
optimum provides an opportunity to select thruster power level based
on other considerations. Our results indicate that thrusters in the
2050 kW range are strong candidates to support systems operating
up to 500 kW total power and 50100 kW thrusters are well-suited for
systems up to 1 MW. Nested-channel Hall thrusters (NHT) operating
at 200500 kW per thruster could potentially extend the applicable
range of Hall-thruster technology to 25 MW.
Our analysis primarily considered systems in three categories of
total system power: 2040 kW, 200400 kW, and up to 1 MW. For the
2040 kW systems being considered for a near-term technology
demonstration mission, any selection of one to five active thrusters is
within 10% of the minimum total cost. This allows the selection of
thruster power level for this mission to be based on other factors
without significantly affecting the mass or cost of the propulsion
system. Similar results were found for 200400 kW systems, where,
for example, the total cost curve is within 10% of the minimum for
any selection of 212 thrusters (27150 kW) at 300 kW. This rather

References
[1] Strange, N., Landau, D., Polk, J., Brophy, J., and Mueller, J., Solar
Electric Propulsion for a Flexible Path of Human Space Exploration,
Presented at the 61st International Astronautical Congress, Prague,
IAC Paper 10.A5.2.4, Sept.Oct. 2010.
[2] Strange, N., Merrill, R., Landau, D., Drake, B., Brophy, J., and Hofer,
R., Human Missions to Phobos and Deimos Using Combined
Chemical and Solar Electric Propulsion, AIAA Paper 2011-5663,
July 2011.
[3] Brophy, J. R., Gershman, R., Landau, D., Polk, J., Porter, C., Yeomans,
D., Allen, C., Williams, W., and Asphaug, E., Asteroid Return Mission
Feasibility Study, AIAA Paper 2011-5565, July 2011.
[4] Brophy, J., Gershman, R., Strange, N., Landau, D. F., Merrill, R., and
Kerslake, T., 300-KW Solar Electric Propulsion System Configuration
for Human Exploration of Near-Earth Asteroids, AIAA Paper
2011-5514, 2011.
[5] Schmidt, T. D., and Auweter-Kurtz, M., Adequate Electric Propulsion
System Parameters for Piloted Mars Missions, Presented at the 29th
International Electric Propulsion Conference, Princeton, NJ, IEPC
Paper 2009-219, 31 Oct.4 Nov. 2005.
[6] Schmidt, T. D., Seboldt, W., and Auweter-Kurtz, M., Flexible Piloted
Mars Missions Using Continuous Electric Propulsion, Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 43, No. 6, 2006, pp. 12311238.
doi:10.2514/1.17843
[7] Braun, R. D., and Blersch, D. J., Propulsive Options for a Manned Mars
Transportation System, Journal of Spacecraft, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1991,
pp. 8592.
doi:10.2514/3.26213
[8] Donahue, B., Solar Electric and Nuclear Thermal Propulsion
Architectures for Human Mars Missions Beginning in 2033, AIAA
Paper 2010-6819, July 2010.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on June 4, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34525

176

HOFER AND RANDOLPH

[9] Hofer, R. R., Randolph, T. M., Oh, D. Y., Snyder, J. S., and De Grys, K.
H., Evaluation of a 4.5 KW Commercial Hall Thruster System for
NASA Science Missions, AIAA Paper 2006-4469, July 2006.
[10] Jacobson, D., and Manzella, D. H., 50 KW Class Krypton Hall Thruster
Performance, AIAA Paper 2003-4550, July 2003.
[11] Manzella, D. H., Jankovsky, R. S., and Hofer, R. R., Laboratory Model
50 KW Hall Thruster, AIAA Paper 2002-3676, July 2002.
[12] Peterson, P. Y., Jacobson, D. T., Manzella, D. H., and John, J. W., The
Performance and Wear Characterization of a High-Power High-Isp
NASA Hall Thruster, AIAA Paper 2005-4243, July 2005.
[13] Mikellides, I. G., Katz, I., Hofer, R. R., Goebel, D. M., De Grys, K. H.,
and Mathers, A., Magnetic Shielding of the Acceleration Channel
in a Long-Life Hall Thruster, Physics of Plasmas, Vol. 18, 2011,
pp. 033501-1033501-18.
doi:10.1063/1.3551583
[14] De Grys, K. H., Mathers, A., Welander, B., and Khayms, V.,
Demonstration of 10,400 Hours of Operation on 4.5 KW Qualification
Model Hall Thruster, AIAA Paper 2010-6698, July 2010.
[15] Hofer, R. R., and Gallimore, A. D., High-Specific Impulse Hall
Thrusters, Part 1: Influence of Current Density and Magnetic Field,
Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2006, pp. 721731.
doi:10.2514/1.15952
[16] Oh, D. Y., , Landau, D., Randolph, T. M., Timmerman, P., Chase, J., and
Sims, J.et al., Analysis of System Margins on Deep Space Missions
Utilizing Solar Electric Propulsion, AIAA Paper 2008-5286,
July 2008.
[17] Oh, D. Y., Evaluation of Solar Electric Propulsion Technologies for
Discovery-Class Missions, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 44,
No. 2, 2007, pp. 399411.
doi:10.2514/1.21613
[18] Ziemer, J. K., Randolph, T. M., Franklin, G. W., Hruby, V., Spence, D.,
Demmons, N., Roy, T., Ehrbar, E., Zwahlem, J., Martin, R., and
Connolly, W., Delivery of Colloid Micro-Newton Thrusters
for the Space Technology 7 Mission, AIAA Paper 2008-4826,
July 2008.
[19] Brophy, J. R., Polk, J. E., Randolph, T. M., and Dankanich, J. W.,
Lifetime Qualification of Electric Thrusters for Deep-Space Missions,
AIAA Paper 2008-5184, July 2008.
[20] Rayman, M. D., and Williams, S. N., Design of the First Interplanetary
Solar Electric Propulsion Mission, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets,
Vol. 39, No. 4, 2002, pp. 589595.
doi:10.2514/2.3848
[21] Landau, D., Chase, J., Randolph, T., Timmerman, P., and Oh, D.,
Electric Propulsion System Selection Process for Interplanetary
Missions, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 48, No. 3, 2011,
pp. 467476.
doi:10.2514/1.51424
[22] Dankanich, J. W., Brophy, J. R., and Polk, J. E., Lifetime Qualification
Standard for Electric Thrusters, AIAA Paper 2009-5095, Aug. 2009.
[23] Brophy, J. R., Propellant Throughput Capability of the Dawn Ion
Thrusters, Presented at the 30th International Electric Propulsion
Conference, IEPC Paper 2007-279, Florence, Italy, 1720 Sept. 2007.
[24] Randolph, T. M., Qualification of Commercial Electric Propulsion
Systems for Deep Space Missions, Presented at the 30th International
Electric Propulsion Conference, Florence, Italy, IEPC Paper 2007-271,
1720 Sept. 2007.
[25] Snyder, J. S., Randolph, T. M., Hofer, R. R., and Goebel, D. M.,
Simplified Ion Thruster Xenon Feed System for NASA Science
Missions, Presented at the 31st International Electric Propulsion
Conference, Ann Arbor, MI, IEPC Paper 2009-064, 2024 Sept. 2009.
[26] Rayman, M., Fraschetti, T. C., Raymond, C. A., and Russel, C. T.,
Coupling of System Resource Margins through the Use of Electric
Propulsion: Implications in Preparing for the Dawn Mission to Ceres
and Vesta, Acta Astronautica, Vol. 60, 2007, pp. 930938.
doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2006.11.012
[27] Randolph, T. M., Dougherty, R. C., Oleson, S. R., Fiehler, D., and
Dipprey, N., The Prometheus 1 Spacecraft Preliminary Electric
Propulsion System Design, AIAA Paper 2005-3889, July 2005.
[28] Tverdokhlebov, S. O., Study of Double-Stage Anode Layer Thruster
Using Inert Gases, Presented at the 23rd International Electric
Propulsion Conference, Seattle, WA, IEPC Paper 93-232, 1316
Sept. 1993.
[29] Linnell, J. A., and Gallimore, A. D., Krypton Performance
Optimization in High-Voltage Hall Thruster, Journal of Propulsion
and Power, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2006, pp. 921925.
doi:10.2514/1.18531
[30] Makela, J. M., Washeleski, R. L., Massey, D. R., King, L. B., and
Hopkins, M. A., Development of a Magnesium and Zinc Hall-Effect
Thruster, Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 26, No. 5, 2010,

[31]

[32]

[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]
[42]

[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]

pp. 10291035.
doi:10.2514/1.47410
Szabo, J., Robin, M., Duggan, J., and Hofer, R. R., Light Metal
Propellant Hall Thrusters, Presented at the 31st International Electric
Propulsion Conference, Ann Arbor, MI, IEPC Paper 2009-138,
Sept. 2024, 2009.
Szabo, J., Pote, B., Paintal, S., Robin, M., Hillier, A., Branam, R., and
Huffman, R., Performance Evaluation of an Iodine Vapor Hall
Thruster, Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2012,
pp. 848857.
Tverkokhlebov, S., Semenkin, A., and Polk, J., Bismuth Propellant
Option for Very High Power TAL Thruster, AIAA Paper 2002-0348,
Jan. 2002.
Szabo, J., Gasdaska, C., Hruby, V., and Robin, M., Bismuth Hall Effect
Thruster Development, Proceedings of the 53rd JANNAF Propulsion
Conference, Monterey, CA, 58 Dec. 2005.
Massey, D. R., and King, L. B., Development of a Direct Evaporation
Bismuth Hall Thruster, AIAA Paper 2008-4520, July 2008.
Garner, C. E., Rayman, M. D., Brophy, J. R., and Mikes, S. C., In-Flight
Operation of the Dawn Ion Propulsion System through Orbit Capture at
Vesta, AIAA Paper 2011-5661, 2011.
Marcucci, M. G., and Polk, J. E., NSTAR Xenon Ion Thruster on Deep
Space 1: Ground and Flight Tests (Invited), Review of Scientific
Instruments, Vol. 71, No. 3, 2000, pp. 13891400.
doi:10.1063/1.1150468
Brophy, J. R., Etters, M. A., Gates, J., Garner, C. E., Klatte, M., Lo, C. J.,
Marcucci, M. G., Mikes, S., and Pixler, G., Development and
Testing of the Dawn Ion Propulsion System, AIAA Paper 2006-4319,
July 2006.
Ganapathi, G. B., and Engelbrecht, C. S., Performance of the Xenon
Feed System on Deep Space One, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets,
Vol. 37, No. 3, 2000, pp. 392398.
doi:10.2514/2.3573
Pehrson, D. M., Continuing Development of the Proportional Flow
Control Valve (PFCV) for Electric Propulsion Systems, Presented at
the 30th International Electric Propulsion Conference, Florence, Italy,
IEPC Paper 2007-346, 1720 Sept. 2007.
Bearden, D. A., Boudreault, R., and Wertz, J. R., Cost Modeling,
Reducing Space Mission Cost, 1st ed., edited by Wertz, J. R., and
Larson, W. J., Microcosm Press, El Segundo, CA, 1996, Ch. 8.
Delionback, L. M., Learning Curves and Progress Functions, in Cost
Estimator's Reference Manual, 2nd ed., edited by Stewart, R. D.,
Wyskida, R. M., and Johannes, J. D., John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1995, pp. 169192, Chap. 5.
Wright, T. P., Factors Affecting the Cost of Airplanes, Journal of
Aeronautical Science, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1936, pp. 122128.
Pielke, R. Jr., and Byerly, R., Shuttle Programme Lifetime Cost,
Nature, Vol. 472, No. 38, 2011.
doi:10.1038/472038d
Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit,
Futron Corp., Whitepaper, Sept. 6 2002.
Musk, E., Falcon Heavy Overview, Space Exploration Technologies
Corporation, http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php [retrieved
18 July 2011].
Hofer, R. R., Peterson, P. Y., and Gallimore, A. D., Characterizing
Vacuum Facility Backpressure Effects on the Performance of a Hall
Thruster, Presented at the 27th International Electric Propulsion
Conference, Pasadena, CA, IEPC Paper 2001-045, 1519 Oct. 2001.
Grishin, S. D., Erofeev, V. S., Zharinov, A. V., Naumkin, V. P., and
Safronov, I. N., Characteristics of a Two-Stage Ion Accelerator with an
Anode Layer, Journal of Applied Mathematics & Technical Physics,
Vol. 2, 1978, pp. 2836.
Spores, R., Monheiser, J., Dempsey, B. P., Wade, D., Creel, K.,
Jacobson, D., and Drummond, G., A Solar Electric Propulsion Cargo
Vehicle to Support NASA Lunar Exploration Program, Presented at the
29th International Electric Propulsion Conference, Princeton, NJ,
2005; also IEPC Paper 2005-320.
Jacobson, D. T., John, J., Kamhawi, H., Manzella, D. H., and Peterson, P.
Y., An Overview of Hall Thruster Development at NASA's John H.
Glenn Research Center, AIAA Paper 2005-4242, July 2005.
Jacobson, D. T., Manzella, D. H., Hofer, R. R., and Peterson, P. Y.,
NASA's 2004 Hall Thruster Program, AIAA Paper 2004-3600,
July 2004.
Manzella, D., Scaling Hall Thrusters to High Power, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Mechanical Engineering, Stanford Univ., Palo Alto, CA,
2005.
Manzella, D. H., and Jacobson, D., Investigation of Low-Voltage/
High-Thrust Hall Thruster Operation, AIAA Paper 2003-5004,
July 2003.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH on June 4, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.B34525

HOFER AND RANDOLPH

[54] Manzella, D. H., Jacobson, D. T., Peterson, P. Y., and Hofer, R. R.,
Scaling Hall Thrusters to High Power, NASA TM-2004-213087,
May 2004.
[55] Liang, R., and Gallimore, A. D., Performance of a Laboratory Hall
Thruster with Two Concentric Discharge Channels, Proceedings
of the 57th JANNAF Propulsion Meeting, Colorado Springs, CO,
37 May 2010.
[56] Brown, D. L., Beal, B. E., and Haas, J. M., Air Force Research
Laboratory High Power Electric Propulsion Technology Development,
Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT,
March 2010.
[57] Liang, R., and Gallimore, A. D., Far-Field Plume Measurements
of a Nested-Channel Hall-Effect Thruster, AIAA Paper 2011-1016,
Jan. 2011.
[58] Szabo, J., Pote, B., Hruby, V., Byrne, L., Tedrake, R., Kolencik, G.,
Kamhawi, H., and Haag, T., A Commercial One Newton Hall Effect
Thruster for High Power In-Space Missions, AIAA Paper 2011-6152,
July 2011.
[59] Randolph, T. M., Mc Elrath, T. P., Collins, S. M., and Oh, D. Y., ThreeAxis Electric Propulsion Attitude Control System with a Dual-Axis
Gimbaled Thruster, AIAA Paper 2011-5586, July 2011.

177

[60] Beal, B. E., Gallimore, A. D., Haas, J. M., and Hargus, W. A., Plasma
Properties in the Plume of a Hall Thruster Cluster, Journal of
Propulsion and Power, Vol. 20, No. 6, 2004, p. 985.
doi:10.2514/1.3765
[61] Beal, B. E., Gallimore, A. D., and Hargus, W. A., Plasma Properties
Downstream of a Low-Power Hall Thruster, Physics of Plasmas,
Vol. 12, 2005, pp. 123503-1123503-8.
doi:10.1063/1.2145097
[62] Beal, B. E., Gallimore, A. D., and Hargus, W. A., Effects of Cathode
Configuration on Hall Thruster Cluster Properties, Journal of
Propulsion and Power, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2007, p. 836.
doi:10.2514/1.24636
[63] Walker, M. L. R., and Gallimore, A. D., Hall Thruster Cluster
Operation with a Shared Cathode, Journal of Propulsion and Power,
Vol. 23, No. 3, 2007, pp. 528536.
doi:10.2514/1.23688
[64] Spanjers, G. G., Birkan, M., and Lawrence, T. J., The USAF Electric
Propulsion Research Program, AIAA Paper 2000-3146, July 2000.

A. Gallimore
Associate Editor