The Technological and Commercial Expansion of Electric ...

The 35th International Electric Propulsion Conference, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA

October 8 – 12, 2017

1

The Technological and Commercial Expansion of Electric

Propulsion in the Past 24 Years

IEPC-2017-242

Presented at the 35th

International Electric Propulsion Conference

Georgia Institute of Technology • Atlanta, Georgia • USA

October 8 – 12, 2017

Dan Lev1, Roger M. Myers

2, Kristina M. Lemmer

3, Jonathan Kolbeck

4, Michael Keidar

4, Hiroyuki Koizumi

5, Han

Liang 6, Daren Yu

6, Tony Schönherr

7, Jose Gonzalez del Amo

7, Wonho Choe

8, Riccardo Albertoni

9, Andrew

Hoskins10

, Shen Yan11

, William Hart12

, Richard R. Hofer

12, Ikkoh Funaki

13, Alexander Lovtsov

14, Kurt Polzin

15,

Anton Olshanskii16

and Olivier Duchemin17

1Rafael – Advanced Defense Systems, Haifa, 3102102, Israel

2R Myers Consulting, LLC, Woodinville, WA, USA

3Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, 49009, USA

4George Washington University, Washington D.C., USA

5The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8654, Japan

6Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China

7ESA/ESTEC, Keplerlaan 1, 2200 AG Noordwijk ZH, The Netherlands

8Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, South-Korea

9Airbus Defence and Space, Toulouse, France

10Aerojet Rocketdyne, Arlington, VA, 22209, USA

11Lab of Advanced Space Propulsion, Beijing Institute of Control Engineering, Beijing, China

12Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA

13Institute of Space and Astronautical Science / JAXA, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-5210, Japan

14Keldysh Research Centre, Onezhskaya st. 8, Moscow, 125438, Russia

15NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812, USA

16EDB Fakel, Kaliningrad, 236001, Russia

17 Safran Aircraft Engines, Space Electric Propulsion Directorate, Vernon, 27200, France

The use of electric propulsion for commercial and research purposes has been gaining

terrain in the past few years. The focus of this paper is the technological and commercial

development of electric propulsion systems since 1993, the year when the first commercial

satellite with an EP system was launched. Since then, 248 satellites with EP systems have

been launched, showing the increased trust that operators have on this type of propulsion.

Over 70% of the 208 analyzed GEO satellites have either a gridded ion thruster or a Hall-

effect thruster, technologies that are replacing the arcjet systems. We report a strong

increase in the number of GEO satellites with EP systems, from an average of 8 satellites per

year to over 15 in the year 2016. For LEO applications, this technological development is not

only limited to the United States and Russia; countries such as China, Japan, South Korea,

and Israel have been aggressively penetrating the market with their own systems to a total of

18 spacecraft in LEO. Russia leads the LEO market with their SPT-series propulsion

systems. Since 1993, seven interplanetary spacecraft with EP have been launched, with the

USA and Japan leading these efforts. Small satellites and LEO satellites are not exempt from

this technological movement, with 15 small satellites launched in this time frame. Half of

them launched between 2015 and 2016, showing an accelerated growth and a large potential

for future developments. We report the technological and commercial development and

analyze the future potential of this technology.


October 8 – 12, 2017

2

I. Introduction

N the hundred years since electric propulsion (EP) was originally conceived it has been developed by an

increasing number of research and industrial entities worldwide‎1. To date a myriad of technological subclasses of

EP exist‎2,‎3

, each at a different Technological Readiness Level (TRL), from basic notions of particle acceleration

techniques to space proven applications.

During the first decades, following the first operation in space of an EP system in 1964, most development

efforts have been invested in maturing five main types of EP technologies – ion engines, pulsed plasma thrusters

(PPT), resistojets, arcjets, and Hall thrusters.

The principle drivers supporting the research, development, and ultimately qualification of each of the five

technologies were government entities; either space agencies or different branches of the military. Most of the early

missions were technology demonstrators and served purely scientific or technological purposes such as the Vela,

Space Electric Rocket Test (SERT), Zond, Lincoln Experimental Satellite (LES) or ‘Meteor’ missions‎1,‎4

. With time,

as EP technologies matured, new and improved propulsion systems were implemented to enable new satellite

maneuverability and execute a variety of missions. The combination of mission requirements and commercial

incentives resulted in EP technology being used principally in GEO communication and in Earth observation

satellites. The lead players capable of developing and implementing EP technologies were the large geo-political

entities, namely the United States, Soviet Union, Japan, Europe, and China.

The first truly operational uses of electric propulsion were for spacecraft attitude control on the Russian Zond-2

in 1964‎5, which used pulsed plasma thrusters, and by the U.S. Vela satellites, which in 1965 used resistojets‎

6. The

first U.S. use of PPTs was on the U.S. LES and NOVA satellites‎7,‎8

, which in 1968 started using pulsed plasma

thrusters for fine ephemeris control to achieve a “drag-free” orbit. The first commercial use of electric propulsion

was in 1981 with the launch of the Intelsat V series of GEO satellites, which used high power resistojets for North-

South Station-Keeping (NSSK), followed rapidly by their use on RCA’s Satcom1‎9. Unfortunately, while the use of

high power resistojets continues successfully to this day on the original Iridium constellation (77 spacecraft) and

many geosynchronous satellites (over 20 to date)‎6, neither the use of PPTs nor resistojets precipitated a world-wide

adoption of electric propulsion, likely due to the incremental nature of the performance improvement they provide.

For this reason, resistojets are not included in the statistics in this paper.

In parallel to the commercial use of resistojets, considerable research and development as well as several

demonstration missions continued with the objective of increasing the capabilities and reducing the cost of space

missions. It was acknowledged that the use of these propulsion devices would thrive with the commercialization of

an increasing number of satellites‎10

due to the increased financial incentives in the commercial marketplace.

In 1993, 24 years ago, Martin Marietta’s communications satellite

Telstar 401 was launched and successfully operated using arcjet thrusters

for GEO orbit north-south station-keeping‎11

(Figure 1). While not the

first communications satellite to use EP for station-keeping, it marks the

point in time when EP technology changed the commercial satellite

marketplace and drove the broad, world-wide adoption of EP technology.

The use of arcjets for NSSK also demonstrated the crucial link between

the selection of in-space propulsion technology and launcher

requirements: the mass reduction enabled by arcjets resulted in a

significant reduction in launcher costs. The commercial success of the

Telstar 401 mission removed major barriers preventing private and

commercial satellite operators from harnessing EP technology.

Following Telstar 401, there was a rapid increase in the number of

satellite integrators implementing EP-based propulsion systems on their satellite platforms. To compete with the

strong advantages of arcjet technology, the additional primes adopted other forms of electric propulsion, such as

gridded ion and Hall-effect thrusters. Over time, EP technology has made great technological and commercial

progress. The main driver for the impressive advancement is the slow and steady commercialization of the space

industry led by a constant demand for an increasing number of communication satellites. In parallel, EP technology

demonstrated the capability to perform a variety of functions and is increasingly used in almost all space

applications, from tiny CubeSats, through Earth observation satellites in LEO, to remote interplanetary missions‎12

.

In this paper, we review the expansion process of EP in the last 24 years. To do so, we focus on four particular

spacecraft niches: (1) communication satellites in GEO, (2) satellites in LEO, (3) interplanetary or deep space

missions, and (4) small satellite platforms under 100 kg. For each niche, we present statistics showing the

chronological increase in the number of satellites carrying EP devices. Additionally, using a geo-political map of

I

Figure 1. Illustration of Telstar 401 -

the first commercial satellite to use

electric propulsion.


October 8 – 12, 2017

3

international EP device manufacturers we show the steady expansion of EP technology to new countries that only

recently established space heritage for their devices, such as South Korea, China, Israel, and others.

II. GEO Communication Satellites

A. Missions in the Years 1993-2016

Commercial communication satellites in GEO saw the fastest growth in the past 24 years in terms of revenue and

number of satellites carrying EP systems. The increasing demand for telecommunication services, whether

commercial or military, serves as an incentive for the maturation of space-proven 1-5 kW electric thrusters.

Traditionally, EP is used to perform station-keeping maneuvers in order to maintain the spacecraft in its designated

slot in the GEO belt. Most GEO satellites carrying EP systems incorporated electric thrusters solely for north-south-

east-west station-keeping maneuvers. The propulsion systems consumed between 1.5kW and 4.5kW of electrical

power, depending on the type of electric thruster.

Despite years of successful use of EP for station-keeping, satellite primes and operators hesitated to use EP for

significant fractions of orbit raising because of the perceived elevated risk and financial penalties caused by the long

trip times to GEO. In addition to this, the benefits of EP were not always fully realized even for the NSSK

maneuvers since some satellite operators still required a three-year chemical propulsion contingency once on orbit.

Two missions played a key role in reducing the perceived risk of EP for orbit raising. In 2001 Artemis‎13

used RIT-

10 ion thrusters for a major fraction of the GTO to GEO transfer to compensate for a malfunction in the launch

vehicle’s chemical upper stage. The ion engines were fired over 18 months to reach GEO. The second key mission,

Smart-1, was launched in 2003 as a secondary payload to GTO, along with two commercial communication

satellites; and over the course of 13 months reached the Moon using a single 1.5 kW Hall thruster. The thruster

operated at maximum power of 1.2 kW due to power constraints of the small spacecraft. In fact, SMART-1 was the

first spacecraft to complete a full transfer from GTO to GEO – and beyond – using nothing but electric propulsion‎14

.

The combination of these missions, the successful experience with station-keeping, and the development of higher

power Hall thrusters led the US Air Force and Lockheed Martin to design the AEHF GEO spacecraft for EP orbit

raising, with an on-board bipropellant system designed to initially boost the spacecraft perigee over the van Allen

belts and 4.5 kW Hall thrusters operated two at a time provided the majority of the orbit raising from GTO to GEO,

an approach described conceptually in Ref.‎15. This orbit raising plan was complicated when AEHF Space Vehicle 1

(SV1) launched in 2010‎16

and the on-board bipropellant system failed, forcing the use of the Hall thrusters for even

more of the orbit raising than planned‎17

. Over the course of a year the Hall thrusters were successfully used to reach

1st 5kW Hall thruster

(AEHF-1)

1st all-electric satellites

(ABS-3A, Eutelsat-115W-B)

1st planned GTO-GEO transfer

(AEHF-2)

1st GTO-GEO transfer

(ARTEMIS)1

st commercial Hall thruster

(Gals-1)

1st commercial ion thruster

(PAS-5)

1st commercial EP

(Telstar 401)

Figure 2. Number of EP-based GEO satellites launched in the years 1993-2016 (3-year running average),

divided into electric thruster subclasses.


October 8 – 12, 2017

4

GEO without compromising mission life. This was

followed by the launch of AEHF SV2 in 2012‎18

and SV3

in 2013‎19

, both which performed nominally with the Hall

thrusters boosting to GEO over 3 months following the

initial perigee raising using the bipropellant system.

Then in 2014 SPT-100 Hall thrusters were used aboard

the Express-AM5 and Express-AM6 satellites to perform

a planned 2,000 km orbit-raising maneuver to reach their

final orbit which started from a Proton-M launcher

super-synchronous insertion orbit‎20

. These EP orbit-

raising efforts culminated in early 2015 when Boeing

delivered the first all-electric satellites carrying XIPS-25

ion thrusters‎21

. These were the first satellites without on-

board chemical propulsion, and thanks to the great mass

savings of using a high specific impulse propulsion

system, the two satellites could be stacked and launched

together, the first time ever‎22

. In 2016, another all-

electric pair of satellites was successfully launched and

is operating as planned‎23

.

Figure 2 presents the number of EP-based GEO

satellites launched in the years 1993-2016. A 3-year

running average was used since the average variance in the order-to-launch time for GEO satellites is approximately

three years‎24,‎25

. Electric thruster subclasses are also presented for each year (resistojets are not included for reasons

given in the introduction). The presented values include all GEO satellites that incorporated EP systems, including

technological, and experimental satellites. It is assumed that technological and experimental GEO satellite missions

have the same significance as commercial satellites since they often serve as precursors to future commercial or

military GEO missions.

The figure shows a slight decreasing-increasing trend in the number of EP-based satellites launched between

1993 and 2016, with a relatively constant average of about 8 satellites per year. This number is a bit higher earlier in

the investigated period (the years 1999-2002) thanks to

several families of satellites (AMC, Echostar and NSS)

utilizing Lockheed Martin’s A2100 platform‎26,‎27

that were

launched in late 1990s and early 2000s. In addition, the

increase at the end of the investigated period (the years

2012-2016) is most likely due to the gained confidence in

EP technology and the slow entrance of newly developed

propulsion systems into the GEO satellite market, such as

the Chinese ion thruster (LIPS-200‎28,‎29

), European Hall

thruster (PPS-1350‎30,‎31

) or the American 5 kW Hall

thruster (XR-5‎32

).

Three subclasses of electric thrusters were used for

GEO station keeping and later for orbit raising maneuvers

– arcjets, Hall thrusters, and gridded ion thrusters. These

technologies were chosen for their power consumption,

thrust, specific impulse, and lifetime. Of the three, arcjet

technology was the most mature at the beginning of the

investigated period, making arcjet technology the most

prolific at that time (Figure 3). More than 95% of the 56

GEO satellites harnessing arcjet technology used Aerojet

Rocketdyne’s MR-510 aboard Lockheed Martin’s A2100

satellite platform‎33

. The first operational use of arcjets for

GEO satellites in Japan was also using Aerojet

Rocketdyne’s systems on the DRTS satellites‎16

.

In parallel with arcjet technology, and by virtue of its

higher specific impulse, ion thruster technology gained

acceptance. Hughes, later acquired by Boeing and most

SPT-10072

16

3

(Fakel)

XR-5(Aerojet)

1

11

KM-5(KeRC)

(1)

HEP-100MF + LHT-100(HIT & BICE) (LIP)

KM-45(KeRC)

2

SPT-70(Fakel)

HIT – Harbin Institute of Technology

BICE – Beijing Institute of Control Engineering

LIP – Lanzhou Institute of Physics

KeRC – Keldysh Research Centre

KM-60(KeRC)

PPS-1350(Snecma)

Figure 4. Number of GEO satellites using Hall

thrusters in the years 1993-2016, by Hall thruster

type and manufacturer (Ekspress-A4 carried both

SPT-100 and KM-5 thrusters. Stentor carried both

SPT-100 and PPS-1350 thrusters).

Figure 3. Relative fraction of each electric thruster

subclass for each six year period and the overall

breakdown for the years 1993-2016.


October 8 – 12, 2017

5

recently by L-3 Communications, served as the leading ion thruster developer with the development of the XIPS-13

and XIPS-25 thrusters that were used on Boeing’s 601 and 702 satellite platforms‎34,‎35

. Of the 57 GEO satellites

incorporating ion thrusters in the investigated period, 31 satellites used the XIPS-25¸ 22 used the XIPS-13 and 4

satellites used thrusters developed and produced by other entities (European or Japanese RF ion thrusters).

Hall thruster technology migrated to the west during the 90’s and in the past 20 years was increasingly used by

Russian, American, and European companies. Hall thruster technology was found attractive because of its high

specific impulse, compared to arcjet technology, and because it produces a high thrust-to-power ratio relative to ion

thrusters, albeit the lower mass savings. The success of utilizing Hall thrusters aboard GEO satellites made the

technology the most used form of electric propulsion by the year 2016. As shown in Figure 4, the various types

Fakel’s SPT-100 Hall thruster‎36,‎37

have dominated the Hall thruster market with 72 of 95 satellites incorporating this

1.5 kW thruster. However, in recent years, new American, European, Chinese, and Russian Hall thrusters penetrated

the GEO satellite propulsion market‎12

, an indication of a trend shift in which a variety of different Hall thrusters will

be available for future missions.

Overall, during the years 1993-2016, a total of 208 GEO satellites incorporating EP systems, excluding high

power resistojets, were launched. The most used subclass to date is Hall thrusters, comprising approximately 46% of

all EP types, followed by ion thrusters (27%), and arcjets (27%).

B. Future Electric Thrusters and Platforms

Recent Hall thrusters such as Aerojet Rocketdyne’s XR-5, Fakel’s SPT-

140D‎38,‎39

or Safran’s PPS®-5000‎

31,‎40 produce a level of thrust significantly

higher than earlier generations, making it possible to consider full electric

orbit raising with significantly longer transfer durations, even for large

satellites. For instance, Airbus-built Eutelsat 172B (Figure 5), the first

European high power satellite to use EP for all maneuvers, is completing

its orbit raising to GEO within about four months after its June 2017

launch by Ariane 5 into a GEO standard transfer orbit and six more

satellites are currently under manufacturing using the Airbus E3000EOR

all-electric platform.

For the long-term goal of building all-electric GEO satellites, JAXA is

planning the Engineering Test Satellite 9 (ETS-9, scheduled launch 2021)

for testing suitable technologies for an all-electric bus. Two pairs of Hall

effect thrusters of up to 6 kW each are foreseen for orbit raising and NSSK‎42

. Mitsubishi Electric (MELCO) had

been selected as prime contractor for building the platform with two thrusters being manufactured by IHI Aerospace

with JAXA support and two SPT-140 Hall thrusters from Fakel‎43-‎44

.

Another direction in the development of Hall thrusters is increasing the thruster’s specific impulse, which

enables this technology to compete with ion thruster technology, without losing the benefit of its relative simplicity

and moderate voltage. Since the increase in specific impulse is achieved by increasing the discharge voltage, new

technological challenges must be solved to ensure adequate lifetime and stability of operation. The KM-60 thruster

developed at the Keldysh Research Centre (KeRC) is the world's first space-proven Hall thruster with a discharge

voltage of 500 V, and has been operated in orbit since 2014‎45

. The average specific impulse of KM-60 exceeds 1850

s. Following the success of the KM-60 the next development step is the development of the KM-75 thruster with a

nominal discharge voltage of 810 V; resulting in specific impulse of over 2680 sec‎46

.

At this point, all major GEO platforms offer an electric propulsion option for partial or full electric orbit raising.

Lockheed Martin announced the extension of the use of XR-5 to their modernized A2100 platform‎47

. The first

commercial satellite to feature the XR-5 is HellasSat-4/SaudiGeoSat-1, which is scheduled for launch in 2018‎48

.

Orbital ATK now offers the XR-5 system on their GEOStar-3 platform‎49

. The first two spacecraft to fly with this

bus are YahSat-3 to be launched in late 2017 and Hylas-4 to be launched in 2018‎50

.

The PPS®5000 Hall Thruster system from Safran, while currently under qualification

‎31,‎40, has also entered

production of flight hardware with deliveries of several flight sets scheduled for late 2017 and early 2018. Its

detailed development status is presented in a separate paper at this conference‎40

. The operating domain under

qualification for the PPS®5000 ranges from 2.5 kW to 5 kW of discharge power, making it the highest-power Hall

thruster either qualified or currently under qualification. The voltage range for qualification is within 300 – 400 V.

Both voltage and power ranges correspond to current PPU limitations, and the thruster itself has growth potential for

higher power levels.

In China, during the past few years, electric propulsion has been developed with a specific road map‎51

in which

ion and Hall thrusters are firstly launched on experimental LEO and GEO spacecraft. The main purpose of these

Figure 5. Eutelsat 172B impression

in orbit‎41

.


October 8 – 12, 2017

6

technological missions is to lay the groundwork for two future commercial GEO satellite platforms to utilize EP –

the DFH-5 and the all-electric DFH-4SP platforms. Both platforms will utilize the LIPS-300 ion thruster. In July

2017, the LIPS-300 ion thruster was launched aboard the Shijian-18 satellite which was lost due to launch failure‎52

.

In parallel, the Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT), in cooperation with Beijing Institute of Control

Engineering (BICE), has developed, and in late 2016 flight-tested‎53

, the magnetically focused Hall thruster (HEP-

100MF‎54

) which is a promising high-efficiency variation of conventional Hall thrusters. In this novel technology, by

using an unconventional magnetic field topology, the Hall thruster’s plume is focused and plume divergence

reduced; leading to a high thrust efficiency.

III. Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Satellites

LEO satellite platforms weighing over 100 kg, are designed to perform a variety of missions such as Earth

observation, atmosphere monitoring, rapid communication to Earth, or purely scientific missions‎55

. To do so,

different maneuver capabilities are required from the propulsion system – short periodic orbit maintenance

activations, long high impulse orbit raising operation, low thrust attitude control impulse bits, continuous operation

for drag compensation, or end-of-life disposal. Each mission requires a specific propulsion system tailored to meet

mission maneuverability needs. For this reason, the requirement diversity of LEO satellite propulsion systems is

greater than that of GEO communication satellites. The earliest successful operational use of electric propulsion on a

LEO small satellite was on the TIP/Nova small satellites, which used pulsed plasma thrusters for fine orbit control

starting in 1981‎7,‎8

. However, developments in other satellite systems and small hydrazine thrusters reduced the

benefits from early electric propulsion systems and delayed further application. More recently, as EP technology has

matured and mission requirements have increased, use of EP systems on LEO small satellites has been revisited.

A key constraint on EP systems of LEO satellites is their power limitation. Unlike GEO comsats, LEO satellite

platforms typically have smaller, lower power payloads, enabling the small, lightweight low power platforms. Since

Table 1. List of all LEO satellites using electric propulsion and weighing over 100 kg that were launched in

the years 1993-2016 (excluding resistojets).

Name Purpose Launch

Mass, kg

Year of

Launch

Thruster

Type Thruster Application Comments

Venμs Technological/scientific 264 2017 HT IHET-300 (Israel)

Drag Compensation

Orbit transfer

Tech demo

Launched in

2017

X-37B OTV-4 Technological/scientific 5400 2015 HT XR-5 (USA) Tech demo

Vernov Technological/scientific 250 2014 PPT APPT-45-2

(Russia) Tech demo

Mission lost

before EPS

operation

Deimos-2 Earth Observation 310 2014 HT HEPS (S. Korea)

Attitude Control

Inclination Change

Debris Avoidance

EgyptSat 2 Earth Observation 1,050 2014 HT SPT-70 (Russia) Orbit Insertion

Orbit Maintenance

DubaiSat-2 Earth Observation 300 2013 HT HEPS (S. Korea)

Attitude Control

Inclination Change

Debris Avoidance

STSAT-3 Technological/scientific 175 2013 HT HEPS (S. Korea) Orbit Maintenance

Shinjian-9A Technological/scientific 790 2012

Ion

Thruster

& HT

LIPS-200 (China)

HT-40 (China)

Orbit raising

Tech demo

Kanopus-V 1 Earth Observation 473 2012 HT SPT-50 (Russia) Orbit Maintenance

Belka-2 Earth Observation 473 2012 HT SPT-50 (Russia) Orbit Maintenance

FalconSat 5 Technological/scientific 180 2010 HT BHT-200 (USA) Orbital Maneuvers

STSAT-2B Technological/scientific 100 2010 PPT (S. Korea) Orbit raising Lost in launch

STSAT-2A Technological/scientific 100 2009 PPT (S. Korea) Orbit raising Lost in launch

GOCE Technological/scientific 1,077 2009 Ion

Thruster T-5 (UK) Drag Compensation

TacSat 2 Technological/scientific 370 2006 HT BHT-200 (USA) Drag Compensation

Tech demo

Monitor-E Earth Observation 750 2005 HT SPT-100 (Russia)

EO-1 Technological/scientific 573 2000 PPT I_tot~1500 kNsec

(USA)

Attitude Control

Tech demo

AO-40 Technological/scientific 397 2000 Arcjet ATOS (Germany) Tech demo

Argos Technological/scientific 2,720 1999 Arcjet 26kW Arcjet

(USA) Tech demo

STEX Technological/scientific 693 1999 HT TAL-D55 (Russia) Tech demo


October 8 – 12, 2017

7

smaller platforms are capable of generating merely hundreds of watts, due to partial exposure to the sun (in LEO)

and limited size of their solar panels, these platforms may usually accommodate low power electric propulsion

systems of no more than a few hundred watts‎56

.

Given the above-described propulsion system frame-of-work four types of electric thrusters have been used, not

including resistojets, in last 24 years: (1) PPTs, (2) arcjets, (3) low power Hall thrusters, and (4) low power ion

thrusters. All four types were incorporated onboard a total of 19 LEO satellites weighing over 100 kg. All satellites

are listed in Table 1. It is noteworthy that seven of the 19 satellites were technology demonstration missions, not

operational missions, enabled by the lower cost of LEO satellites.

While the missions in 1999 and 2000 included demonstrations of arcjet, PPT, and Hall thruster systems, Hall

thrusters became more dominant as mission heritage was gained and newer players, such as South-Korea, developed

their versions of electric thrusters‎57-‎59

.

It can also be observed in the table that only two

ion thrusters were launched on LEO platforms. The

first is the LIPS-200, a Chinese 1 kW thruster

operated in LEO‎28

to flight-test it as preparation for

future missions aboard GEO platforms‎60

. The

second thruster is the QinetiQ T5 Kaufman-type ion

thruster‎61

, which was chosen for the GOCE LEO

mission, where high specific impulse and low thrust

throttling capability were needed to reduce

propellant mass and allow for accurate continuous

drag compensation‎62

.

The relatively low number of satellites utilizing

electric thrusters is mainly due to the lack of

commercial incentives for LEO missions, which

have also prevented the industry from developing

and proving the suitable low power technology to

meet LEO satellite maneuverability demands. This

fact left low power thruster development in the

hands of the various governments that invested their

efforts to meet Earth observation needs (Figure 6).

Finally, because the required ∆V of LEO platforms is relatively low, for most LEO missions the advantage of

using electric propulsion is usually not that significant compared to chemical propulsion.

Several factors may change today’s picture and increase the usage of electric propulsion for LEO satellites:

1) Growing commercial incentives – In the past three years, there has been a fast-growing commercial using

LEO telecommunication satellite constellations to enable low-latency internet access to large parts of the

world‎63

. These satellites, which must be positioned above an altitude of 1,000 km‎64

, require performing an

energetically-costly orbit raising injection maneuver. The associated ∆V required to perform the maneuver

makes high specific impulse electric thrusters an attractive option for these satellite platforms, which is why

companies such as SpaceX and OneWeb are developing their own EP-based platforms‎65,‎66

.

2) Increased use of secondary launch opportunities – For many cases, even though launching as a secondary

payload reduces the cost of launch, the satellite is usually not placed in the desired operational orbit,

requiring the use of a higher performance on-board propulsion system for orbit placement.

3) Longer mission lifetime – As technology progresses, the average LEO satellite lifetime extends, requiring

additional propellant; therefore, making high specific impulse and long-lifetime electric thrusters an

attractive option.

4) Deorbit requirement – To reduce the amount of space debris, many countries require that each LEO satellite

be equipped with some means of propulsion which will enable the spacecraft to maneuver into a disposal

orbit. The deorbit requirement increases the overall required ∆V for the satellite platform, making electric

thrusters more attractive for LEO platforms.

5) New maneuvers – Low thrust high specific impulse capability allows for a variety of maneuvers that could not be performed in the past. Altitude change, plane change and phase change‎67

(to enable satellite servicing

or satellite re-positioning), drag compensation, and full attitude control (replacing the reaction wheels) to

name a few. The new potential applications open the door for new possible missions, increasing the overall

requirement for LEO satellites in general and electric propulsion in particular.

(2017)

Figure 6. Number of LEO satellites incorporating electric

propulsion systems (by thruster manufacturer nation and

by thruster type).


October 8 – 12, 2017

8

IV. Planetary and Interplanetary Spacecraft

A. Missions in the Years 1993-2016

Electric propulsion stands out as an attractive choice for planetary and interplanetary missions thanks to its high

specific impulse compared with other types of propulsion. Of the various electric propulsion technologies, ion

thrusters possess the highest specific impulse and are able to deliver the total impulse required for these missions.

Therefore, ion thrusters are the most common form of electric thrusters used for interplanetary missions‎68,‎69

. In fact,

five of the seven EP-equipped interplanetary spacecraft utilize ion thrusters as their main means of propulsion.

The electrical power consumed by the electric thrusters depends on the mission needs and varies between several

watts (Electrospray thrusters on Lisa-Pathfinder) to over 2.5 kW (NSTAR thrusters on Dawn), and span a total

impulse range of 2×103 N-s to over 2×10

7 N-s depending on the mission requirements and technology capability.

Figure 7 and Table 2 list all

planetary and interplanetary

missions based on electric

propulsion technologies. It can be

observed that only seven

interplanetary missions included

electric propulsion in the past 24

years. The low figure is mainly due

to the high risk and cost associated

with interplanetary missions that

led to a natural tendency for

spacecraft designers to choose

well-based technologies with extensive in-flight operation history, such as chemical thrusters. However, over time

confidence in electric propulsion technologies grows and an increasing number of interplanetary spacecraft included

electric propulsion systems, as seen in the table.

The U.S., Japan, and the European Union are the present leaders to date with respect to planetary and

interplanetary missions that utilize EP systems for primary propulsion. It is expected that in the future, these nations

will fly an increasing number of EP-based interplanetary missions, continuing their leadership in this area. Many of

the proposed missions, as discussed in section IV-B (Future Missions), involve trips to asteroids, near-Earth objects,

and other bodies in the solar system. Some missions even go further, proposing to return samples from another body

back to Earth. Most of the proposed missions require the imparting of significant ∆V to the spacecraft to reach the

given destination. These missions, much like the past missions listed in Table 2, require high Isp propulsion systems

like those offered by EP to reach the proposed destinations and many of the missions could not be executed using a

lower Isp chemical propulsion system.

In addition to allowing spacecraft to reach a given destination, a high Isp EP system also offers the advantage of a

high degree of spacecraft maneuverability once the spacecraft is ‘on station’ at a destination. This has proven very

useful in the Dawn mission‎75,‎76

, for example, where the spacecraft entered orbit around Vesta and propulsively

Table 2. List of planetary and interplanetary missions using EP in the years 1993-2016.

Mission Name Destination Launch Year Prop. Sys. wet

(dry) mass, kg EP Technology Power, kW

Total Impulse, N-

sec

Deep Space 1‎70 Asteroid 1998 129.5 (48) NSTAR

(Ion Thruster) 0.48-1.94

2.73×106

(qualified)

Hayabusa-1‎71,‎72 Asteroid 2003 125 (59) µ-10


1×106

(space proven)

SMART-1‎73,‎74 Moon 2003 113 (31) PPS-1350

(HT) 0.65-1.41

1.2×106

(space proven)

Dawn‎75,‎76 Protoplanets

Vesta & Ceres 2007 554 (129)

NSTAR


1.23×107

(planned)

>2×107

(space proven)

Hayabusa-2‎72 Asteroid 2014 127 (61) µ-10


1.2×106

(space proven)

PROCYON‎69 Asteroid 2014 9.5 (7) (with cold gas system)

I-COUPS

(Ion Thruster) 0.038

2×103

(qualified)

Lisa

Pathfinder‎77 L-1 2015 - (Electrospray) 0.015 -

Dee

p Spac

e 1

1998

Hayabusa-1

Smart-1

2003

Daw

n

2007

Hay

abusa

-2

PRO

CY

ON

2014

Lisa Pathfinder

2015

Figure 7. Planetary and interplanetary missions utilizing electric

propulsion in the years 1993-2016.


October 8 – 12, 2017

9

reduced altitude below 200 km (~125 mi) to obtain high-resolution low-altitude images and measurements of the

surface. Once it was finished at Vesta, the Dawn spacecraft still had enough ∆V capability to depart Vesta and

subsequently enter orbit around Ceres, where it again reduced orbital altitude to obtain high-resolution low-altitude

data. Another instance where use of a high Isp EP system afforded a high degree of spacecraft maneuverability was

the Hayabusa-1 sample return mission to the asteroid Itokawa‎71,‎72

. Not only was a large ∆V increment required to

reach the target asteroid and later return the spacecraft to Earth, but the maneuverability afforded by the propulsion

system was required to complete the mission. The high Isp system allowed first for the study of the asteroid’s

physical characteristics upon arrival and then enabled a powered landing on the surface and subsequent take-off to

return physical samples of the asteroid to Earth.

B. Future Interplanetary Missions

Given the fact that interplanetary missions require a relatively long development and preparation period, the

general spacecraft architecture of most missions for the next decade are delineated. Future known interplanetary

missions incorporating electric propulsion technologies include:

1) BepiColombo – The ESA Cornerstone mission to the planet Mercury,

BepiColombo‎78

(Figure 8) will use a high specific (>4000 sec), high

total impulse capability ion propulsion system. The BepiColombo

Solar Electric Propulsion Module will be propelled by a cluster of

high-power (in the 2.5-4.5 kW range) QinetiQ T6 gridded

ion thrusters‎79

providing a maximum thrust of 143 mN each. The

system will maintain one complete propulsion unit (Thruster, PPUs

and FCU) in cold redundant status. Over 3,000 hours of thruster

characterization tests using both a single and twin thruster

configuration have been performed. Thruster characterization with one

single neutralizer in twin thruster configuration and a test at high

temperature has also been performed. Analysis on the lifetime capability of the thruster (ion optics and

components) will provide suitable data for the improvement of the design and of the thruster reliability. A

lifetime test will also take place. The mission is forecasted to launch in 2018.

2) Solar Power Sail (SPS) – The SPS, now under Phase-A study at JAXA, is a Trojan asteroid sample return

mission‎80

. The mission is a strong candidate for strategic middle-class scientific mission at ISAS/JAXA.

During its cruising to a Trojan asteroid, SPS will use not only solar sail propulsion but also solar electric

propulsion. The flexible and lightweight feature of SPS was firstly demonstrated as JAXA's IKAROS

mission‎81

, and by scaling up IKAROS's solar power sail (14m x 14m) up to a larger 50m x 50m sail. High

electric power generation harnessing more than 5 kW is possible at 5.2 AU, and enables operation of a

high-Isp version of the μ-10 ion engine‎82

even at large distances from the Sun. If selected as ISAS's

strategic middle-class scientific mission, launch of the SPS spacecraft is planned for the early 2020s.

3) DESTINY+ – DESTINY+ is an asteroid flyby mission to the Phaethon asteroid‎83

. The spacecraft will first

be injected into an Earth's elliptical orbit, and then, the orbit is spiraled upward by employing the μ-10 ion

engine until the spacecraft goes into a Sun revolving orbit. Continuous ion engine operation is also required

in planetary space before conducting the asteroid flyby. DESTINY+ has several mission objectives,

including the demonstration and experimentation of space technologies for interplanetary voyage; the

investigation of the lifetime evolution of primitive celestial body; and the evolution process of meteor

shower dust. This small-class scientific mission, now under Phase-A study at JAXA, is tentatively

scheduled for launch aboard the Epsilon launch vehicle in 2022‎84

.

4) Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) – The development of the proposed PPE was recently announced

as the first part of an evolvable human architecture to Mars that replaces the now cancelled Asteroid

Redirect Robotic Mission (ARRM) as a possible first application of the Advanced Electric Propulsion

System (AEPS)‎85,‎86

. AEPS leverages several NASA-developed technologies, including the 12.5 kW Hall

Effect Rocket with Magnetic Shielding (HERMeS)‎87

. This high-power EP capability, or an extensible

derivative of it, has been identified as a critical part of an affordable, beyond-low-Earth-orbit, human-

exploration architecture. AEPS will also find possible application to commercial missions and several

other robotic missions‎88

.

5) Psyche – Selected by NASA in January 2017 and slated for launch in 2022 as part of the latest Discovery

mission competition, the Psyche spacecraft‎89

(Figure 9) would investigate 16 Psyche, a large M-type

asteroid orbiting the Sun at roughly 3 AU. For Psyche, Arizona State University (ASU) and JPL have

partnered with Space Systems Loral, LLC (SSL), a commercial satellite manufacturer with extensive

Figure 8. Illustration of the

BepiColombo spacecraft.


October 8 – 12, 2017

10

experience developing and flying high power SEP

spacecraft. The Psyche spacecraft conceptual design

leverages SSL's existing product line by multiple SPT-140

Hall Effect thrusters, each of which provides a maximum

thrust of approximately 250 mN. The SPT-140 thruster was

flight qualified by SSL for their commercial GEO

spacecraft product line in 2015, and is currently scheduled

to fly on an SSL spacecraft in 2017‎90

. During early concept

studies, testing was conducted on the SPT-140 to extend its

throttle range and lifetime to match Psyche’s mission

requirements‎91,‎92

. In order to address the variation in peak

power voltage (65 to 100 V) over variable distances from

the Sun, the Psyche spacecraft concept design utilizes a power architecture in which discharge converters

from SSL's GEO heritage product line boost solar array voltage to provide 100V regulated power to the

Power Processing Unit. The research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute

of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

6) DART – the Double Asteroid Redirection Test‎93

will use a 7.5 kW NEXT-C gridded ion thruster developed

by NASA and Aerojet Rocketdyne to deliver a spacecraft, being designed and built by APL, to the binary

near-Earth asteroid (65803) Didymos and demonstrate kinetic asteroid deflection for planetary defense by

crashing into the smaller body of the binary system and observing the change in its weak orbit around the

larger asteroid. The NEXT-C system can accommodate 80-160V input to the power processor and can

provide over 4100 s specific impulse at 235 mN thrust and is a candidate for several New Frontiers

missions. For the low cost DART mission, the NEXT-C thruster will operate at a single set point, with a

specific impulse of 3140s at 137mN thrust. Launch is forecast in early 2021‎94

.

V. Small Spacecraft under 100 kg

Mini-satellites, Microsatellites‎95

, and CubeSats‎96

are a rapidly growing niche in the space industry. Since 2010,

the number of small satellites launched expanded by hundreds of percent to over a hundred spacecraft launched in

the year 2016. Moreover, it is estimated that in the next three years, this figure would increase to over 250 spacecraft

per year‎97

. Of all small satellites under 100 kg launched since the year 1993, only 15 incorporated electric thrusters.

This is due to the fact that most small satellites include a basic and minimal design, usually conducted by academic

institutions or space start-up companies. In many cases the mission design does not require the use of a propulsion

system. Additionally, most of the propulsion devices available to CubeSats are very expensive compared to the cost

of the satellite itself and are not affordable to academic institutions. Moreover, CubeSats launched from the ISS have

very strict requirements that limit the use of propulsion systems‎98

. Nevertheless, the increasing number of small

satellites, new applications found for these spacecraft, and the requirement to dispose of them at the end of mission

raise the demand for some means of propulsion.

Propulsion systems for small satellites must meet the following requirements:

1) Volume and Mass – Small satellites are volume-limited and subject to a stringent propellant mass

requirement, increasing the incentive for higher high specific impulse propulsion systems for higher V

missions. Depending on the size of the spacecraft, the available volume for the propulsion system ranges

from less than ¼ U‎99

up to about 1 U‎100

. Accordingly, the propulsion system’s wet mass can only have mass

up to several hundred grams. Note: A “U” of a satellite is a unit of measurement for CubeSats, which consist

of one or more 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm cubes. Thus, a “3 U” satellite consists of 3 cubes with lengths of

approximately 10 cm.

2) Total Impulse – The total impulse requirement is determined by the nature of the mission. Typical values

range widely since small satellite masses and mission requirements vary widely. Typical values range from

2 m/s for satellite de-tumble and attitude adjustments‎101

to 100 m/s for active attitude control and several

km/s for orbit changes and interplanetary missions. Impulse is generated by propulsion systems with

specific impulse between 30 and 3100 seconds.

3) Low Electromagnetic interference – Due to the compactness of small satellites, all their subsystems are

within close proximity from each other. Any electrostatic or electromagnetic interference caused by the

electric thrusters may harm on-board electronic components, thus hindering the mission.

4) Low power – One of the major limitations of electric thrusters on-board small satellites is the low available

electrical power due to the limited solar panel surface area of the small spacecraft. The typical value of the

Figure 9. Artist’s concept of the Psyche

Spacecraft.


October 8 – 12, 2017

11

available electrical power

depends on the size of the

spacecraft and ranges between 5

W on a 1 U CubeSat and several

hundred watts on a 50-kg-class

satellite. In a typical 3 U CubeSat,

power is limited to around 10 W

unless the satellite has deployable

solar panels, which will

significantly increase available

surface area for solar cells. This

of course comes at the cost of

increased mass and increased

financial expense.

5) Cost-Effective – Most CubeSat

designers are either academic

institutes or small organizations

aiming at moderate satellite

capabilities. These entities have

small budgets and may be willing

to compromise on reliability as long as it drives down procurement costs. Additionally, the low cost of

CubeSats puts a limit on the total cost of the EP system – it cannot be larger than the cost of the satellite.

For these reasons electric thrusters for CubeSats should have a simple design and be made of low-cost

components; eventually lowering the end price of the propulsion system. Furthermore, many missions

simply do not require a propulsion system, mainly because attitude control can be done through other

means, such as magnetorquers or reaction wheels.

The list of small satellites launched with electric thrusters in the years 1993-2016

is presented in Table 3. The first small satellite to utilize electric propulsion (ION)

was launched in 2006 and used a Vacuum Arc Thruster (VAT). The satellite could

not be tested in orbit due to a failure of the Dnepr rocket which leads to a loss of

mission. Following the first CubeSat to be delivered with an electric thruster, three

other types of very low power thrusters were incorporated – Micro Pulsed Plasma

Thrusters (μPPTs), electrospray thrusters, and micro ion thrusters; Through 2016, 15

missions have been delivered with electric propulsion. The four types of electric

thrusters (VAT, μPPT, electrospray, and micro ion thruster) have been under

development for over a decade alongside other micro-electric propulsion devices‎102

which are yet to be used in space but may fly in future missions.

Vacuum arc thrusters‎103

and pulsed plasma thrusters‎104

are similar technologies

that create a quasi-neutral plasma discharge and do not require a neutralizer. The

former uses the cathode as propellant which is ablated during each discharge. The

ablated material is accelerated by means of magneto-hydrodynamics. In addition to

the VAT that was on the ION mission, George Washington University has developed

the the Micro-Cathode Arc Thruster (CAT), based on the vacuum arc thruster. The

CAT was flown on the BRICSat-P CubeSat, shown in Figure 10, in 2015. Pulsed

Plasma Thrusters rely on a discharge between two electrodes to ablate a non-

conductive propellant. PTFE is the most common propellant used for PPTs, and the only one to have been used for

space to date, although other materials have been proposed, such as PFPE, water or air‎106-‎108

. The MarsSpace &

ClydeSpace collaborative PPTCUP for CubeSat application (2 W) has been fully qualified, but awaits a flight

opportunity‎109

. The Austrian academic 2U CubeSat PEGASUS, launched successfully in June 2017 within the QB50

program, features µPPTs built by FHWN and supported by FOTEC to test delta-V capabilities for low-size

satellites‎110

.

For both VATs and PPTs, the amount of thrust developed is dependent on the amount of propellant ablated

during the discharge and the repetition rate of the discharge. For highly efficient thrusters, the amount of propellant

should not exceed the thruster’s capability to ionize the gas. This results in impulse bits that are on the order of tens

of microNewton-seconds. Therefore, achieving substantial thrust required for orbit/inclination change or exploration

Table 3. List of all small spacecraft (under 100 kg) using electric

propulsion that were launched in the years 1993-2016.

Name Launch

Mass, kg

Year of

Launch

Thruster

Type Application

AOBA-VELOX 3 2.00 2016 PPT Orbit Maintenance

AeroCube 8D 3.00 2016 Electrospray

AeroCube 8C 3.00 2016 Electrospray

Horyu 4 (AEGIS) 10.00 2016 VAT Attitude Control

Orbit Maintenance

BRICsat-P 1.90 2015 VAT Attitude Control

Orbit Change

AeroCube 8B 3.00 2015 Electrospray Tech demo

AeroCube 8A 3.00 2015 Electrospray Tech demo

PROCYON 67.00 2014 Ion Thruster Deep space travel

Hodoyoshi-4 64.00 2014 Ion Thruster

WREN 0.25 2013 PPT

CUSat 25 2013 PPT Attitude Control

Orbit Maintenance

STRaND-1 3.50 2012 PPT Attitude Control

PROITERES 15.00 2012 PPT

FalconSat 3 50.00 2007 PPT Attitude Control

Illinois Observing

Nanosatellite (ION) 2.00 2006 VAT

Figure 10. Fully assembled

BRICSat-P, showing the

side with VAT heads‎105

.


October 8 – 12, 2017

12

missions requires several thrusters or high frequency

repetition rates, both of which are limited by low

power capabilities of small satellites and their ability

to dissipate the heat produced by the propulsion

system. Table 4 summarizes the various types of

missions to which each type of small satellite electric

thrusters is suited.

Electrospray thrusters for small satellites make

use of a strong electric field applied to a conductive

liquid to extract small charged droplets, ions, or

mixtures of both from the propellant reservoir. The

main benefit of electrospray systems relies on their

compactness, which is achieved by: (1) the lack of

pressurization in a relatively simple propellant

management system that uses propellants with zero

vapor pressure (ionic liquids), (2) the fact that no ionization volume

is needed to create charged particles and (3) the suitability of these

devices to be integrated in small packages using micromachining

techniques. The power required and the thrust available are

dependent on the number of emitter tips. As a result, electrospray

propulsion systems are very scalable, and they are suitable for all

types of small spacecraft missions. MIT has developed a number of

laboratory thrusters (Figure 11) and characterized their

performance‎111

. The current design is based on a 1 cm2 thruster

containing about 500 emitting tips that nominally produce 10-30

µN of thrust with a specific impulse of 700-1000 s. Flight versions

of these thrusters have been included in AeroCube8 satellites for

technology demonstration‎112-‎113

. Accion Systems Inc is creating TILE, which is a scalable version based on

clustering of arrays of these thrusters. It is envisioned that Accion’s TILE will be able to provide ~4000 N-s impulse

in a 1 U envelope‎114

.

Gridded ion thrusters are a technology that has simple scaling laws; therefore, they are relatively simple to

miniaturize. For most small spacecraft, there will be one gridded ion thruster as the main propulsion system. This

limits the scalability associated with electrospray thrusters, thus limiting their use in precision orbit maintenance and

formation flying. They produce a significant amount of thrust (on the order of 0.1 – 10 mN) with respect to a small

spacecraft, and therefore are ideal for exploration missions and orbit/inclination change. One limitation of gridded

ion thrusters is the requirement for beam neutralization, requiring increased power and mass requirements without

increased thrust. In this subclass of EP, the first small satellite that utilized micro ion thrusters was Hodoyoshi-4

equipped with an 8.1 kg miniature ion propulsion system, denoted MIPS‎115

. The spacecraft was launched in June

2014 and the ion thruster first operated in October 2014 where it showed a couple of successful operations during a

limited visible time in LEO. Another miniature ion thruster with the same design as MIPS was equipped on an

interplanetary micro-spacecraft, PROCYON‎116-‎118

, which was launched to an interplanetary orbit in December 2014

along-side Hayabusa-2. The ion thruster experienced 223 hours operation with an average thrust of 346 N‎119

. There

are several other small ion thrusters that have been developed but not yet delivered for a satellite mission. These

include Busek’s iodine-fueled 3-cm RF BIT-3, Giessen University’s 2.5-cm RF NRIT-4, and Airbus’s RIT-X.

It is interesting to note that about half of the EP-based satellites were launched in the years 2015-2016, hinting

on the growth potential that micro- electric propulsion has thanks to the small satellite market growing trend. It can

therefore be speculated that electric propulsion for the small satellite market will greatly expand in the upcoming

years.

VI. Conclusion

The last 24 years have shown an increased trust in electric propulsion systems from both satellite manufacturers

and operators. There has been a steady increase in the amount of launched satellites with electric propulsion systems

to a total of 248 spacecraft. Since 1993, 208 GEO satellites with EP technologies have been launched, with over

70% of them having either a gridded ion thruster or a Hall thruster on board, replacing the well-established arcjet

due to their higher specific impulse and proven reliability. The amount of EP-based satellites has had a steady

Figure 11. Picture of MIT’s electrospray

thruster, also operated aboard the

AeroCube8 nano-satellites.

Table 4. Electric thruster applicability to satellite mission

type.

Mission type VAT/

PPT Electrospray

Micro Gridded

Ion Thruster

Exploration X X

Orbit\Inclination

Change X X

Attitude Control X X X

Station Keeping X X X

Formation Flying X X

Precision Attitude

Control/Orbit

Maintenance

X X

Spacecraft

Detumble X X X

De-orbit X X X


October 8 – 12, 2017

13

increase since the first commercial EP satellite was launched in 1993. The trend can be seen in Figure 12. Key

missions such as the European Space Agency’s SMART-1 mission in 2003 and the first conjoined GEO satellite

launch using Boeing’s 702SP fully electric bus in 2015 have shown the ability of EP systems to compete with

chemical propulsion systems when it comes to orbit transfers, despite the increased time it takes to get to the final

orbit. Satellite operators see the advantages of EP in terms of mass reduction on their spacecraft, and thus, lower

launch costs. Additionally, EP systems allow longer operation of the satellites given the same propellant mass.

Electric propulsion enabled missions that were unthinkable with conventional propulsion systems, such as NASA’s

Dawn mission, which has completed two successful orbit insertions around Vesta and Ceres. The Japanese mission

Hayabussa-1 showed the community how even against the greatest odds, the EP system was able to bring the

satellite back to complete the mission of returning samples to Earth.

The development of electric propulsion systems and the trend seen on geostationary satellites is not limited to

these and interplanetary missions. We also see a slow increase in the use of EP in small satellites, with an expected

impressive growth with the appearance of LEO satellite constellations. The increased usage of EP in LEO platforms

is augmented by a steady penetration to the market of new developers from countries other than the US and Russia.

We also see a strong increase in the small satellite sector, where CubeSat missions such as BRICSat-1 from the

US Naval Academy are paving new grounds when it comes to the usage of EP by these small missions. These EP

micro-propulsion devices enable brand new missions and allow universities and small organizations to perform

more and more complex missions. Additionally, having an EP system on board can allow them to continuously

compensate for drag, keeping the satellite in orbit for a longer period of time, making it easier to justify the initial

expense.

Future missions are currently underway and many will be ready to be launched within the next few years.

Missions such as Psyche and BepiColombo will further prove how EP technologies are the key to exploring our

solar system. On the commercial side, companies such as SpaceX with their upcoming Starlink network will

contribute to the trend seen in the previous 24 years, where operators have been slowly, but steadily transitioning to

electric propulsion systems for their satellites. If the trend from the previous 24 years is to continue, we can forecast

a very bright future for electric propulsion companies and we look forward to seeing this development unfold.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Daniel Narviv (IAI), Mike Tsay (Busek), Paulo Lozano (MIT), Jonathan Paisley (Lockheed

Martin), Leonid Appel (Rafael), Jim Szabo (Busek), Dan Goebel (NASA JPL) and Cosmo Casaregola (Eutelsat) for

their advice, comments and help in shaping this paper.

References 1 Choueiri, E. Y., "A Critical History of Electric Propulsion: The First 50 Years (1906-1956)" Journal of Propulsion and

Power, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2004, pp. 193-203.

2 Mazouffre, S., “Electric propulsion for satellites and spacecraft: established technologies and novel approaches”. Plasma

Sources Science and Technology, 25(3), 2016, p.033002.

3 Goebel, D. M. and Katz, I., Fundamentals of electric propulsion ion and Hall thrusters, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2008.

Figure 12. Number of EP-based spacecraft launched in the years 1993-2016, divided into mission type.


October 8 – 12, 2017

14

4 Daniłko, Dariusz. "Overview of electric propulsion." Photonics Applications in Astronomy, Communications, Industry, and

High-Energy Physics Experiments 2014 (2014). 5 Nickolay N. Antropov, Garry A. Popov and Michael N. Kazeev. "Ablative Pulsed Plasma Thrusters R&D in Russia since

the Beginning of the 90s.", Proceedings of the 33rd International Electric Propulsion Conference (IEPC), Washington D.C.,

USA, 2013, IEPC-2013-68. 6 R. G. Jahn and E.Y. Choueiri, "Electric Propulsion," Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 3rd Ed., Vol. 5, New

York, Academic Press, 2002. 7 Roger M. Myers, "Electromagnetic Propulsion for Spacecraft." Presented in the 1993 Aerospace Design Conference, Irvine,

CA, USA, 1993, AIAA-93-1086. 8 Roger M. Myers, Steven R. Oelson, Melissa McGuire, Nicole J. Meckel and Joseph R. Cassady, "Pulsed Plasma Thruster

Technology for Small Satellite Missions." Presented at the 9th AIAA/Utah State University Conference on Small Satellites, 1995. 9 Michael, J. Mitrich. "Resistojet Propulsion for Large Spacecraft Systems," Presented in the 16th International Electric

Propulsion Conference (IEPC), New Orleans, LA, Russia, 1982.

10 Martinez-Sanchez, M. and Pollard, J. E., "Spacecraft Electric Propulsion-An Overview", Journal of Propulsion and Power,

Vol. 14, No. 5, 1998, pp. 688-699.

11 R. Rhoads Stephenson. "Electric Propulsion Development and Application in the United States," Proceedings of the 24th

International Electric Propulsion Conference (IEPC), Moscow, Russia, 1995, IEPC-95-01.

12 Lev, D .R., Emsellem, G. D. and Hallock, A. K., “The Rise of the Electric Age for Satellite Propulsion”. New Space, 2017.

13 Killinger, Rainer, Ralf Kukies, Michael Surauer, Angeo Tomasetto, and Leo Van Holtz. "ARTEMIS orbit raising inflight

experience with ion propulsion." Acta Astronautica 53.4-10 (2003): 607-21.

14 Duchemin, O. B., Caratge, A., Cornu, N., Sannino, J. M., Lassoudière, and Lorand, A., “Ariane 5-ME and Electric

Propulsion: GEO Insertion Options”, AIAA-2011-6084, 47th Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, San Diego, CA, 31 July –

03 Aug 2011.

15 Oleson, Steven R., Roger M. Myers, Craig A. Kluever, John P. Riehl, and Francis M. Curran. "Advanced Propulsion for

Geostationary Orbit Insertion and North-South Station Keeping." Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 34.1 (1997): 22-28. 16 W. Andrew Hoskins, R. Joseph Cassady, Olwen Morgan, Roger M. Myers, Fred Wilson, David Q. King and Kristi deGrys.

"30 Years of Electric Propulsion Flight Experience at Aerojet Rocketdyne.", Proceedings of the 33rd International Electric

Propulsion Conference (IEPC), Washington D.C., USA, 2013, IEPC-2013-439. 17 Dudney, Robert S. “Rescue in Space.” Air Force Magazine, Jan. 2012, pp. 38–41. 18 Ray, Justin. “AEHF 2 Communications Satellite Keeps on Cllimbing”, SpaceFlightNow.com 16 May 2012, Web accessed

on 18 Sept 2017 https://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av031/lae/. 19 Gruss, Mike. “US Air Force Launches Advanced Communications Satellite.” Space.com, 18 Sept. 2013. Web. Accessed

on 18 Sept 2017 < https://www.space.com/22847-military-communications-satellite-aehf3-launch.html>. 20 "Russia launches a twin for its largest comsat." Russian Space Web., Web. Accessed on 15 July 2017.

<http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ekspress-am6.html> 21 A. Svitak. Dawn of the All-Electric Satellite. http://aviationweek.com/space/dawn-all-electric-satellite, March 16, 2015.

Accessed: 2016-12-10.

22 De Selding, Peter B. "SpaceX Lofts Pair of All-Electric Satellites for ABS and Eutelsat." SpaceNews.com., 02 Mar. 2015.

Web. Accessed on 11 July 2017. <http://spacenews.com/spacex-lofts-pair-of-all-electric-satellites-for-abs-and-eutelsat/>. 23 "SpaceX Successfully Launches All-Electric Satellites; Loses First Stage in Landing Attempt." Room, The Space Journal.

Web. Accessed on 11 July 2017. <https://room.eu.com/news/spacex-successfully-launches-all-electric-satellites-loses-first-stage-

in-landing-attempt>. 24 Davis, Lorrie A., and Lucien Filip. How Long Does It Take to Develop and Launch Government Satellite Systems? Tech.

no. ATR-2015-00535. Aerospace Corporation, 12 March 2015. 25 Satellite Manufacturing: Production Cycles and Time to Market, Bethesda, MD; Futron Corporation. May 2004. 26 D.A. Lichtin1, N.V. Chilelli, J.B. Henderson, R.A. Rauscher, Jr., K.J. Young, D.V. McKinnon, J.A. Bailey, C.R. Roberts,

D.M. Zube and J.R. Fisher, "AMC-1 (GE-1) Arcjets at 12-plus Years On-Orbit." 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion

Conference and Exhibit (2009). 27 Zube, Dieter, Paul Lichon, Dan Cohen, Daniel Lichtin, John Bailey, and Nicholas Chilelli. "Initial on-orbit performance of

hydrazine arcjets on A2100 satellites." 35th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit (JPC), 1999. 28 Zhang Tianping, Wang Xiaoyong, Jiang Haocheng, Wang Shaoning, Gao Jun, Xu Jinling, Cui Tieming, Yang Fuquan, Guo

Ning, Tang Fujun and Chen Xuekang. "Initial Flight Test Results of the LIPS-200 Electric Propulsion System on SJ-9A

Satellite.", Proceedings of the 33rd International Electric Propulsion Conference (IEPC), Washington D.C., USA, 2013, IEPC-

2013-47. 29 Zhang Tianping, Meng Wei, Geng Hai, Zhang Weiweng and Yang Hao. "7500-hour Life Test of the QM LIPS-200 Ion

Thruster," Proceedings of the Joint Conference of 30th International Symposium on Space Technology and Science 34th

International Electric Propulsion Conference (IEPC) and 6th Nano-satellite Symposium, Hyogo-Kobe, Japan, 2015, IEPC-2015-

133/ISTS-2015-b-133.

https://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av031/lae/

http://aviationweek.com/space/dawn-all-electric-satellite


October 8 – 12, 2017

15

30 Vial, V., Cornu, N., Turin, G., Arcis, N., Sivac, P. and Naulin, A., “Electric Propulsion On Board Alphabus,” IAC-

14,C4,4,x26270, presented at the 65th International Astronautical Congress, Toronto, Canada, 2014. 31 Vial, V., Vaudolon, J., Duchemin, O., Cornu, N., and Lonchard, J.-M., “Electric Propulsion at Safran,” IAC-

17,C4,4,x41304, presented at the 68th International Astronautical Congress, Adelaide, Australia, 2017. 32 deGrys, Kristi, Mathers, Alex; Welander, Ben and Khayms, Vadim. “Demonstration of 10,400 Hours of Operation on a 4.5

kW Qualification Model Hall Thruster”, AIAA Paper 2010-6698. Presented at the 46th Joint Propulsion Conference (JPC),

Nashville, TN, 2010. 33 Smith, R.D., Aadland, R.S., Roberts, C.R., “Flight Qualification of the 2.2 kW Hydrazine Arcjet System,” IEPC-97-082,

Presented in the International Electric Propulsion Conference (IEPC), Cleveland, OH, August 1997. 34 Kuei-Ru Chien, Stephen L Hart, William G. Tighe, Michael K De Pano, Thomas A Bond and Rafael Spears. "L-3

Communications ETI Electric Propulsion Overview," Proceedings of the 29th International Electric Propulsion Conference

(IEPC), Princeton, NJ, USA, 2005, IEPC-2005-315. 35 Dan Goebel, Manuel Martinez-Lavin, Thomas Bond and Andrew King, Presented in the 38th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint

Propulsion Conference (JPC) & Exhibit, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. (2002). 36 Vyacheslav Murashko, Alexander Koryakin, Arkadij Nyatin, Vladimir Kim, Garry Popov, Anatoly Romanshko, Yuri

Yermoshkin, Victor Petrusevich, Oleg Gorshkov, Anatoly Koroteyev, Valrery Garkusha, Alexander Semenkin and Sergei

Tverdokhlebov. "State of the Art and Prospects of Electric Propulsion in Russia.", Proceedings of the 28th International Electric

Propulsion Conference (IEPC), Toulouse, France, 2013, IEPC-2003-340. 37 Goebel, Dan M., and Ira Katz. Fundamentals of electric propulsion: ion and Hall thrusters. Oxford: Wiley, 2008. Print. 38 Snyder, John S., and Richard R. Hofer. “Throttled Performance of the SPT-140 Hall Thruster.” Presented in the 50th

AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference (IEPC), 2014. 39 Olshanskaya, O. V., and A. U. Usanov. “Analysis of the SPT-140 Thruster Mechanical Strength.” Procedia Engineering,

vol. 185, 2017, pp. 69–76. 40 Duchemin, O., Rabin, J., Balika, L., Diome, M., Lonchard, J.M., Cavelan, X., Boniface, C. and Liénart, T., “Development

Status of the PPS®5000 Hall Thruster Unit,” IEPC-2017-415, presented at the 35th International Electric Propulsion Conference

(IEPC), Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2017. 41 Gaullier, François, “Electric Satellites - Lighter and Smarter”, Asia-Pacific Satellite Communications Council APSCC

Newsletter, Q1 2015, pp. 4-9. 42 ETS-9 project progress results", 9th May 2017, 34th Space Development Application Workshop. 43 “Mitsubishi Electric Chosen as Prime Contractor of Japanese Government's Engineering Test Satellite 9.” Mitsubishi

Electric News Releases, 4 July 2017, <www.mitsubishielectric.com/news/2017/0407-a_print.html>. Accessed on 16 Sept. 2017. 44 Funaki Ikkoh, et al. “Laboratory Testing of Hall Thrusters for All-Electric Propulsion Satellite and Deep Space

Explorers.” Presented in the 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference (JPC), July 2016. 45 Vorontsov V.V., Kostin A.N., Lovtsov A.S., Volkov D.V., Ermoshkin Yu.M., Yakimov E.N., Gorshkov O.A.,

Ostapushchenko A.A., Udalov D.V., Arkhipov Yu.S., Buldashev S.A., Development of KM-60 based orbit control propulsion

subsystem for geostationary satellite, Procedia Engineering 185 (2017 ), pp. 319 – 325. 46 Lovtsov A.S., Tomilin D.A., Muravlev V.A., “Development of High-Voltage Hall Effect Thrusters at Keldysh Research

Centre”, Presented in the 68th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), 2017, IAC-17.C4.4.4x39529. 47 Douglas McKinnon, Harald Weigl and Lou Maack, "Lockheed Martin’s A2100 Spacecraft Bus Modernization" AIAA-

2016-5724, 34th AIAA International Communications Satellite Systems Conference, 1999. 48 Rhian, Jason. "Aerojet Rocketdyne to Provide Propulsion Subsystems for A2100 Satellites" SpaceFlightInsider.com., 26

June. 2015. Web. Accessed on 18 Sept 2017. <http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/commercial/aerojet-rocketdyne-to-

provide-propulsion-subsystems-for-a2100-satellites/>. 49 Henry, Caleb. "Orbital Sciences Adds All-Electric Caapbility to GEOStar-3 with Aerojet Rocketdyne Thrusters",

SatelliteToday.com., 4 Feb. 2015. Web. Accessed on 18 Sept 2017. <

http://www.satellitetoday.com/technology/2015/02/04/orbital-sciences-adds-all-electric-capability-to-geostar-3-

with-aerojet-rocketdyne-thrusters/>. 50 De Selding, Peter B. "Orbital Sciences First GeoStar-3 Satellite Orders Said To Be for Avanti, Yahsat" SpaceNews.com.,

25 July. 2014. Web. Accessed on 18 Sept 2017. < http://spacenews.com/41385orbital-sciences-first-geostar-3-satellite-orders-

said-to-be-for/>. 51 Gao J, Tang ZY, Liu GX, Zou DR, Wu CL. “China's satellite electric propulsion system development situation and

application progress”, Presented in the 12th Electric propulsion technology academic symposium in China. Harbin, December

2016 [in Chinese]. 52 Foust, Jeff. "Long March 5 launch fails." SpaceNews.com, 02 July 2017. Web. Accessed on 18 July 2017. 53 Shen Yan, et al, “Primary In-Space Experimental results of the HEP-100MF Electrical Propulsion System”, Presented in

the 68th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), September 2017, IAC-17.C4.IP.42x40486. 54 Hu Yanlin, et al., “Development of HEP-XXMF Series Hall thruster in BICE”, Aerospace China, 2016,17(2):9-16. 55 Kramer, Herbert J. Observation of the Earth and Its Environment Survey of Missions and Sensors. Berlin: Springer Berlin,

2014. Print.

https://doi.org/10.2514/MJPC02

https://doi.org/10.2514/MJPC02

http://www.satellitetoday.com/technology/2015/02/04/orbital-sciences-adds-all-electric-capability-to-geostar-3-with-aerojet-rocketdyne-thrusters/

http://www.satellitetoday.com/technology/2015/02/04/orbital-sciences-adds-all-electric-capability-to-geostar-3-with-aerojet-rocketdyne-thrusters/


October 8 – 12, 2017

16

56 Thales Alenia Space France, “Propulsion need for future Observation & Science satellites”, Presentation, Electric

Propulsion Innovation and Competitiveness (EPIC) workshop, Brussels, November 2014. 57 H. Cho, W. Cha, J. Lee, M. Seo and W. Choe, "10mN Hall Propulsion System Development for Satellite," Journal of The

Korean Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences (2011.04): 377-380. 58 J. Seon, S. Kang, Y. Kim, E. Chun, W. Choe, J. Lee, M. Seo, "Development of Hall-effect Thruster for Orbit Correction

and Transfer of Small Satellites," Journal of The Korean Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences 37.5 (2009.5): 490-495. 59 E. Kim, Y. Kim, Y. Jeong, B. Lee, H. Lee, A. AlSayegh, "Thruster Performance Analysis of Hall-effect Thruster by Orbit

Evolution," 14th International Conference on Space Operations (2016.07): 2627-2635. 60 Zhang Tianping, Sun Mingming, Long Jianfei and Zhou Haocheng. "The Electric Propulsion Development in

LIP.", Proceedings of the 33rd International Electric Propulsion Conference (IEPC), Washington D.C., USA, 2013, IEPC-2013-

48. 61 Mark Hutchins, Huw Simpson and Javier Palencia Jiménez. "QinetiQ’s T6 and T5 Ion Thruster Electric Propulsion System

Architectures and Performances," Proceedings of the Joint Conference of 30th International Symposium on Space Technology

and Science 34th International Electric Propulsion Conference (IEPC) and 6th Nano-satellite Symposium, Hyogo-Kobe, Japan,

2015, IEPC-2015-131/ISTS-2015-b-131. 62 Bassner, Helmut, Rainer Killinger, Micheal Marx, Ralf Kukies, Miguel Aguirre, Clive Edwards, and Hans-Peter Harmann.

"Ion propulsion for drag compensation of GOCE." 36th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit (2000). 63 Hodson, Hal. "Internet's Final Frontier." New Scientist 225.3006 (2015): 18-19. 64 De Selding, Peter B. "OneWeb, Boeing settle constellation orbit issue; SpaceX questions OneWeb ownership." Space Intel

Report. N.p., 25 Apr. 2017. Web. Accessed on 04 June 2017. <https://www.spaceintelreport.com/oneweb-boeing-settle-

constellation-orbit-issue-spacex-questions-oneweb-ownership/>. 65 De Selding, Peter B., "SpaceX Opening Seattle Plant to Build 4,000 Broadband Sats." SpaceNews.com., 08 Feb. 2015.

Web. Accessed on 11 July 2017. <http://spacenews.com/spacex-lofts-pair-of-all-electric-satellites-for-abs-and-

eutelsat/http://spacenews.com/spacex-opening-seattle-plant-to-build-4000-broadband-satellites/>. 66 “OneWeb Satellites inaugurates serial production line for the Assembly, Integration, and Test of OneWeb's first

satellites.” www.Airbus.com, Airbus Defence and Space, 27 June 2017, Accessed on 18 Aug. 2017.

www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2017/06/one-web-satellites-serial-production-line-inauguration.html. 67 Scott King, Mitchell Walker, Craig Kluever, “Small Satellite LEO Maneuvers with Low-Power Electric Propulsion ”,

AIAA-2008-4516, 44th Joint Propulsion Conference, Hartford, CT, July 20-23, 2008. 68 Manzella, D., “Low Cost Electric Propulsion Thruster for Deep Space Robotic Missions,” 2007 NASA Science Technology

Conference, Hyattsville, Maryland, June 2007, Paper No. 07-0116. 69 Haruki Takegahara, Hitoshi Kuninaka, Ikkoh Funaki, Akira Ando, Kimiya Komurasaki, Hiroyuki Koizumi, Tony

Schönherr, Shunjiro Shinohara, Takao Tanikawa, Masakatsu Nakano, Yoshinori Nakayama, Akihiro Sasoh, Takeshi Miyasaka,

Hirokazu Tahara, Naoji Yamamoto and Akira Kakami. "Overview of Electric Propulsion Research Activities in

Japan," Proceedings of the Joint Conference of 30th International Symposium on Space Technology and Science 34th


01/ISTS-2015-b-01. 70 G John R. Brophy, Roy Y. Kakuda, James E. Polk, John R. Anderson, Michael G. Marcucci, David Brinza, Michael D.

Henry, Kenneth K. Fujii, Kamesh R. Mantha, John F. Stocky, James Sovey, Mike Patterson, Vince Rawlin, John Hamley, Tom

Bond, Jon Christensen, Hap Cardwell, Gerald Benson, Joe Gallagher, Mike Matranga and Duff Bushway, “Ion Propulsion

System (NSTAR) DS1 Technology Validation Report”, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 71 Hitoshi Kuninaka, Kazutaka Nishiyama, Yukio Shimizu, Ikko Funaki, Hiroyuki Koizumi, Satoshi Hosoda and Daisuke

Nakata. "Hayabusa Asteroid Explorer Powered by Ion Engines on the way to Earth.", Proceedings of the 31st International

Electric Propulsion Conference (IEPC), Ann-Arbor, MI, USA, 2009, IEPC-2009-267. 72 K. Nishiyama, S. Hosoda, K. Ueno, R. Tsukizaki and H. Kuninaka. "Development and Testing of the Hayabusa2 Ion

Engine System," Proceedings of the Joint Conference of 30th International Symposium on Space Technology and Science 34th


333/ISTS-2015-b-333. 73 Denis Estublier, Giorgio Saccoccia and Jose Gonzalez del-Amo, “Electric Propulsion on Smart-1”, esa bulletin, no. 129,

February 2007. 74 Koppel, C., and Estublier, D., “The Smart-1 Hall-Effect Thruster Around the Moon: In-Flight Experience,” IEPC-2005-

119, presented at the 29th International Electric Propulsion Conference, Princeton, NJ, USA, 2005. 75 Garner, Charles, Marc Rayman, John Brophy, and Steven Mikes. "In-Flight Operation of the Dawn Ion Propulsion System

Through the Preparations For Escape From Vesta." 48th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit (2012). 76 Patterson, Michael, and Scott Benson. "NEXT Ion Propulsion System Development Status and Performance." 43rd

AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit (2007). 77 Busek Electrospray Thrusters. Web. Accessed on 19 July 2017. <http://www.busek.com/technologies__espray.htm> 78 Benkhoff, Johannes, Jan Van Casteren, Hajime Hayakawa, Masaki Fujimoto, Harri Laakso, Mauro Novara, Paolo Ferri,

Helen R. Middleton, and Ruth Ziethe. "BepiColombo—Comprehensive exploration of Mercury: Mission overview and science

goals." Planetary and Space Science 58.1-2 (2010): 2-20.

http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2017/06/one-web-satellites-serial-production-line-inauguration.html

http://mwalker.gatech.edu/papers/AIAA-2008-4516.pdf


October 8 – 12, 2017

17

79 Stephen D. Clark, Mark S. Hutchins, Ismat Rudwan, Neil C. Wallace and Javier Palencia. "BepiColombo Electric

Propulsion Thruster and High Power 1 Electronics Coupling Test Performances," Proceedings of the 33rd International Electric

Propulsion Conference (IEPC), Washington D.C., USA, 2013, IEPC-2013-133. 80 Takanao Saiki, Jun Matsumoto, Osamu Mori, and Junichiro Kawaguchi, “Solar Power Sail Trajectory Design for Jovian

Trojan Exploration”, Presented at the Joint Conference: 31st ISTS, 26th ISSFD & 8th NSAT, ISTS-2017-d-130/ISSFD-2017-130,

Matsuyama, Japan, June 3-9, 2017. 81 Yuichi Tsuda, Osamu Mori, Ryu Funase, Hirotaka Sawada, Takayuki Yamamoto, Takanao Saiki, Tatsuya Endo, Katsuhide

Yonekura, Hirokazu Hoshino and Junichiro Kawaguchi, “Achievement of IKAROS—Japanese Deep Space Solar Sail

Demonstration Mission,” Acta Astronautica, 82 (2013), pp.183-188. 82 Hiroshi Hayashi, Yoshinori Nakayama, Miyuki Usui, Hiroyuki Koizumi, Satoshi Hosoda, Yukio Shimizu, Kazutaka

Nishiyama and Hitoshi Kuninaka, “Experimental Demonstration of Microwave Discharge Ion Engine with 10,000 sec Isp,”

Transactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Space Technology Japan, Vol. 7 (2009), No. ists26,

pp.Tb_1-Tb_4. 83 Bruno Victorino Sarli, Makoto Horikawa, Chit Hong Yam, Yasuhiro Kawakatsu and Takayuki Yamamoto, “DESTINY+

Trajectory Design to (3200) Phaethon,” Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, available online. 84 Kazutaka Nishiyama, Yasuhiro Kawakatsu, Hiroyuki Toyota, Ryu Funase, Tomoko Arai, and DESTINY Working Group,

“DESTINY+: A Mission Proposal for Technology Demonstration and Exploration of Asteroid 3200 Phaethon,” Presented at the

Joint Conference: 31st ISTS, 26th ISSFD & 8th NSAT, ISTS-2017-k-14, Matsuyama, June 3-9, 2017. 85 Herman, D., Tofil, T., Santiago, W., Kamhawi, H., Mcguire, M., Polk, J. E., Snyder, J. S., Hofer, R., Picha, F., Jackson, J.,

and Allen, M., "Overview of the Development and Mission Application of the Advanced Electric Propulsion System (Aeps),"

Presented at the 35th International Electric Propulsion Conference (IEPC), IEPC-2017-284, Atlanta, GA, Oct. 8 - 12, 2017. 86 Stanley, Steven B., et al. “Development of a 13 kW Hall Thruster Propulsion System Performance Model for

AEPS.” Presented in the 53rd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference (JPC), July 2017. 87 Hofer, R. and Kamhawi, H., "Development Status of the 12.5 kW Hall Effect Rocket with Magnetic Shielding

(HERMeS)," Presented at the 35th International Electric Propulsion Conference (IEPC), IEPC-2017-231, Atlanta, GA, Oct. 8 -

12, 2017. 88 Snyder, J. S., Manzella, D., Lisman, D., Lock, R. E., Nicholas, A., and Woolley, R., "Additional Mission Applications for

NASA's 13.3-kW Ion Propulsion System," Presented at the IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, March, 2016. 89 Lord, P., Tilley, S., Oh, D. Y., Goebel, D., Polanskey, C., Snyder, S., Carr, G., Collins, S., Lantoine, G., Landau, D.,

Elkins-Tanton, L., "Psyche: Journey to a Metal World", IEEE 2463_02.0111, 2017 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky,

Montana, March 4-11, 2017. 90 Delgado, J. J. , R.L. Corey, V.M. Murashko, A.I. Koryakin, and S.Y. Pridanikov, “Qualification of the SPT-140 for use on

western spacecraft,” AIAA-20143606, 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Cleveland, OH, July 28-30,

2014. 91 Snyder, J.S. and Hofer, R.R. “Throttled performance of the SPT-140 Hall Thruster,” AIAA-2014-3816, 50th

AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Cleveland, OH, July 28-30, 2014. 92 Charles E. Garner, Benjamin Jorns, Richard R. Hofer, Raymond Liang, and Jorge Delgado. "Low-Power Operation and

Plasma Characterization of a Qualification Model SPT-140 Hall Thruster", AIAA2015-3720. 51st AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint

Propulsion Conference, Propulsion and Energy Forum, http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-3720. 93 Cheng, Andrew F., et al. “Asteroid Impact and Deflection Assessment: Double Asteroid Redirection Test”. Paper IAC-

17.A3.4B.2 International Astronautical Congress, Adelaide, Australia, 2017. 94 Talbert, Tricia. “NASA'S First Asteroid Deflection Mission Enters Next Design Phase.” NASA, 30 June 2017,

www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-first-asteroid-deflection-mission-enters-next-design-phase/. Accessed on 29 August 2017. 95 Wright, W.p., and P. Ferrer. "Electric micropropulsion systems." Progress in Aerospace Sciences 74 (2015): 48-61.

96 Lemmer, Kristina. "Propulsion for CubeSats." Acta Astronautica 134 (2017): 231-43.

97 Doncaster, Bill, Caleb Williams, and Jordan Shulman. 2017 Nano/Microsatellite Market Forecast. Rep. Atlanta:

SpaceWorks Enterprises inc., 2017.

98 Launch Services Program - Program Level Dispenser and CubeSat Requirements Document. Tech. no. LSP-REQ-317.01.

B ed. John F. Kennedy Space Center, FL: National Astronautics and Space Administration, 2014.

99 Gustafson, Charles L., and Siegfried W. Janson. "Think Big, Fly Small." Crosslink (Summer 2014): n. pag. Print. The

Aerospace Corporation.

100 "Busek - Space Propulsion and Systems - Products." Pulsed Plasma thrusters. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2017.

101 G. Manzoni, Y.L. Brama, “Cubesat Micropropulsion Characterization in Low Earth Orbit”, Proceedings of the 29th

AIAA/USU Conference Small Satell., Logan, UT: SSC15–IV–5, 2015.

102 M. Keidar, T. Zuang, A. Shashurin, G. Teel, D. Chiu, J. Lucas, S. Haque, L. Brieda, Electric Propulsion for Small

Satellites, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, vol. 57 (2015) 014005. 103 Kolbeck, Jonathan, et al. “Micropropulsion Based on Vacuum Arc Physics and Technology: A Review.” Presented at the

52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference (JPC), 2016, doi:10.2514/6.2016-5040.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-3720


October 8 – 12, 2017

18

104 Kenyon, Shaun, and Christopher Bridges. "STRAND-1: Use of a $500 Smartphone as the Central Avionics of a

Nanosatellite." 62nd International Astronautical Congress (2011).

105 S. Hurley, G. Teel, J. Lukas, S. Haque, M. Keidar, C. Dinelli, and J. Kang, “Thruster Subsystem for the United States

Naval Academy's (USNA) Ballistically Reinforced Communication Satellite (BRICSat-P)”, Transactions of JSASS, Aerospace

Technology Japan, Vol. 14, No. ists30, pp. Pb157-Pb163, 2016. 106 Rezaeiha, Abdolrahim, and Tony Schönherr. “Review of Worldwide Activities in Liquid-Fed Pulsed Plasma

Thruster.” Journal of Propulsion and Power, vol. 30, no. 2, 2014, pp. 253–264. 107 Ling, William Yeong Liang, et al. “Characteristics of a non-Volatile liquid propellant in liquid-Fed ablative pulsed

plasma thrusters.” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 121, no. 7, 2017, p. 073301. 108 Tony Schönherr, Gakuto Han, Caglayan Gürbüz, Hiroyuki Koizumi and Kimiya Komurasaki, “First Experiments

Towards an Atmosphere-Breathing PPT," Proceedings of the Joint Conference of 30th International Symposium on Space

Technology and Science 34th International Electric Propulsion Conference (IEPC) and 6th Nano-satellite Symposium, Hyogo-

Kobe, Japan, 2015, IEPC-2015-272/ISTS-2015-b-272. 109 Ciaralli, S., et al. “Results of the qualification test campaign of a Pulsed Plasma Thruster for Cubesat Propulsion

(PPTCUP).” Acta Astronautica, vol. 121, 2016, pp. 314–322. 110 Poster, European Geosciences Union, General Assembly 2015, Vienna, Austria, 12.–17. April 2015. 111 D. Krejci, F. Mier-Hicks, R. Thomas, T. Haag and P.C. Lozano, Emission Characteristics of Passively Fed Electrospray

Microthrusters with Propellant Reservoirs, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 54(2) (2017) 447-458. 112 R. Haghighi, C.K. Pang, Distributed Optimal Formation Flying Control of a Group of Nanosatellites, in: Proceedings of

the 12th IEEE International Conference Control Autom., Kathmandu, Nepal: pp. 1020–1025, 2016. 113 A. Gronland, K. Palmer, K. Jonsson, J. Bejhed, Miniaturisation enables propulsion also for micro- and nanosatellites,

Proceedings of the Small Satellites, System & Services Symposium (4S), Valletta, Malta, 2016. 114 Accion Systems – Tiled Ionic Liquid Electrospray (TILE). Web. Accessed on 27 August 2017. http://www.accion-

systems.com/tile. 115 Koizumi, H. Komurasaki, K., Aoyama, J., and Yamaguchi, K.,“ Engineering Model of the Miniature Ion Propulsion

System for the Nano-satellite,“ Trans. JSASS Space Tech. Japan, Vol. 12, pp.Tb_19-Tb_24, 2014. Doi: 10.2322/tastj.8.Pb_85. 116 Funase, R., Inamori, T., Ikari, S., Ozaki, N., Koizumi, H., Tomiki, A., Kobayashi, Y., and Kawakatsu, Y., “Initial

Operation Results of a 50-kg-class Deep Space Exploration Micro-Spacecraft PROCYON,” AIAA/USU Conference on Small

Satellites, SSC15-V-5, Logan, UT, USA, 2015. 117 Koizumi, H., Inagaki, T., Kasagi, Y., Naoi, T., Hayashi, T., Funase, R., and Komurasaki, K., “Unified Propulsion System

to Explore Near-Earth Asteroids by a 50 kg Spacecraft,” AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, SSC14-VI-6, Logan, UT,

USA, 2014. 118 Koizumi, H., Kawahara, H., Yaginuma, K., Asakawa, J., Nakagawa, Y., Nakamura, Y., Kojima, S., Matsuguma, T.,

Funase, R., Nakatsuka, J., and Komurasaki, K., Initial Flight Operations of the Miniature Propulsion System installed on Small

Space Probe: PROCYON, Trans of Japan Soc. for Aeronautical and Space Sci., Aerospace Technology Japan, Vol. 14, Pb_13-

Pb_22, 2016. Doi: 10.2322/tastj.14.Pb_13. 119 Richard E. Wirz. “Miniature Ion Thrusters: A Review of Modern Technologies and Mission Capabilities," Proceedings

of the Joint Conference of 30th International Symposium on Space Technology and Science 34th International Electric Propulsion

Conference (IEPC) and 6th Nano-satellite Symposium, Hyogo-Kobe, Japan, 2015, IEPC-2015-275/ISTS-2015-b-275.

http://www.accion-systems.com/tile

http://www.accion-systems.com/tile

The Technological and Commercial Expansion of Electric ...

Documents

Transcript of The Technological and Commercial Expansion of Electric ...