Acta Astronautica 105 (2014) 145–155

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Acta Astronautica
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro

A direct fusion drive for rocket propulsion$

Yosef S. Razin a, Gary Pajer a, Mary Breton a, Eric Ham a, Joseph Mueller a,
Michael Paluszek a,n, Alan H. Glasser b, Samuel A. Cohen c
a
Princeton Satellite Systems, 6 Market St, Suite 926, Plainsboro, NJ 08536-2096, USA
b
Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics, University of Washington, Box 352400, Seattle, WA 98195-2400, USA
c
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, P.O. Box 451, Princeton, NJ 08543-0451, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: The Direct Fusion Drive (DFD), a compact, anuetronic fusion engine, will enable more
Received 28 February 2013 challenging exploration missions in the solar system. The engine proposed here uses
Received in revised form a deuterium–helium-3 reaction to produce fusion energy by employing a novel field-
19 August 2013
reversed configuration (FRC) for magnetic confinement. The FRC has a simple linear
Accepted 8 August 2014
Available online 28 August 2014
solenoid coil geometry yet generates higher plasma pressure, hence higher fusion power
density, for a given magnetic field strength than other magnetic-confinement plasma
Keywords: devices. Waste heat generated from the plasma's Bremsstrahlung and synchrotron
Fusion radiation is recycled to maintain the fusion temperature. The charged reaction products,
Propulsion
augmented by additional propellant, are exhausted through a magnetic nozzle. A 1 MW
FRC
DFD is presented in the context of a mission to deploy the James Webb Space Telescope
Deuterium
Helium-3 (6200 kg) from GPS orbit to a Sun–Earth L2 halo orbit in 37 days using just 353 kg of
Aneutronic propellant and about half a kilogram of 3He. The engine is designed to produce 40 N of
thrust with an exhaust velocity of 56.5 km/s and has a specific power of 0.18 kW/kg.
& 2014 IAA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction exposure to cosmic radiation and zero-gravity conditions.

Furthermore, on such missions, high-power propulsion is
The future of space exploration, from robotic deep- essential in the case of an aborted operation, as it would
space expeditions to manned interplanetary missions, will allow the astronauts to quickly return to Earth in case of an
require high-thrust, high-exhaust velocity engines. These accident or emergency. The engine's exact specifications,
specifications shorten the transit time and reduce the particularly its power and specific impulse, will vary for
mass of the spacecraft. Thus, operational costs, which for each mission. Thrust can be further augmented by the
deep space missions can approach $50M USD per year, are injection of additional propellant and the use of multiple
lowered. For manned missions, the decreased transit time engines. Herein, one such mission is illustrated powered
has the additional benefit of reducing the astronauts' by the Direct Fusion Drive engine (DFD) with moderate
power (
1 MW) and specific impulse of at least 5750 s.
Many proposed NASA and ESA missions require high-
☆
This paper was presented during the 63rd IAC in Naples performance propulsions systems, as shown in Table 1. All
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 609 275 9606. of these power requirements are exceeded by the output
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Y.S. Razin), of the DFD, which can potentially achieve up to 20 MW of
[email protected] (G. Pajer), [email protected] (M. Breton),
[email protected] (E. Ham), [email protected] (J. Mueller),
power. Thus, the engine theoretically meets the antici-
[email protected] (M. Paluszek), pated requirements for deep-space and interplanetary
[email protected] (A.H. Glasser), [email protected] (S.A. Cohen). manned missions. The 1 MW DFD will be presented in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.08.008
0094-5765/& 2014 IAA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
146 Y.S. Razin et al. / Acta Astronautica 105 (2014) 145–155

Table 1
Proposed NASA and ESA missions requiring high-power propulsion systems. The power was determined from the specific mass of the power sources.

Mission Power (kW) Power source Engine References

JIMO 180 Nuclear fission Nexis ion & hall thrusters [52]
Outer planets 95 Nuclear fission Nexis Ion [52]
200 AU 65 Nuclear fission DS4G [11]
200 AU 160 Solar panels Ion [11]
NEO 2004 MN4 210 Solar panels Ion [32]
NEO crew 350 Solar panels Hall [32]

Table 2
Comparison of propulsion technologies for deploying the James Webb Space Telescope. A Δu of 3.1 km/s, required for a low thrust transfer from GPS orbit
to L2, is used as a baseline for comparison. The mass ratios are calculated using the rocket equation, using the initial mass mi , final mass mf , exhaust
velocity ue , and the total mission velocity change Δu. For the electric propulsion options, the energy source and its fuel are not specified as it is external to
the propulsion system, therefore an advanced solar cell power system with specific power of 500 W/kg [26] is used for the most favorable comparison.
Fusion propulsion usually does not involve direct propulsion, but uses the fusion engine as a power source for heating, thus thrust data is not included for
D–T or p–11B. The values for D–3He are based on the results from the example mission in Section 4.

Type Fuel Propellant Exhaust velocity, ue (km/s) Mass ratio, mi =mf (kg/kg) Thrust, T (N) Thrust-to-weight ratio References

Chemical (RL-10) LOx–LH2 H2O 4.6 1.96 1.1  105 60.53 [1,51]
Ion (typical) Xe 30 1.11 0.24 4.6  10  4 [40,50]
Ion (DS4G) Xe 140 1.02 1.0 5.1  10  4 [11]
Hall Ar 20 1.17 1.1 1.6  10  3 [13,46]
MPD Ar 27 1.12 12 7.1  10  4 [4,41]
Fission U, Pu H2 7.0 1.56 3.3  105 30 [49,53]
233
Nuclear Lightbulb U H2 18 1.19 4.1  105 1.31 [18,37]
VASMIR Ar 49 1.07 5 9.3  10  5 [3]
4
Fusion D–T He 1.3  104 1.00
Fusion p–11B 4
He 1.2  104 1.00
3 4
Fusion D– He He þ p 2.5  104 1.00 0.054

DFD D–3He D 56 1.06 40 6.5  10  3

the context of a mission to deploy the James Webb Space underestimates. One electric propulsion system, the
Telescope from a GPS orbit to a Sun–Earth L2 halo orbit. Dual-Stage 4-Grid system (DS4G), shows promise and
Most other nuclear propulsion schemes, both fusion- analysis suggests performance similar to the fusion engine
and fission-based, only are realizable at power levels of described in [12] and [11]. D–3He fusion without thrust
GWs, at which point the mass of fuel, propellant, structure, augmentation supplies too little thrust, making it imprac-
and shielding severely limit their space flight capabilities. tical for most missions. Adding propellant significantly
Nuclear thermal rockets, which have been demonstrated, slows down the fusion products and raises the thrust to a
prove very undesirable in comparison to the DFD. While more effective level for space travel.
they exhibit a high thrust-to-weight ratio, their exhaust
velocity is only 7.5 km/s, a fraction of that of direct fusion
rockets [5]. Fission engines face two further challenges: 2. Fusion background
the potential risks associated with putting uranium and
plutonium into orbit and the negative public sentiment Minimal neutron production is attractive for space
about taking such risks. Fission electric schemes are propulsion because it reduces the required shielding as
limited in power conversion efficiency by the maximum well as the engine size, mass, and cost. Additionally, the
temperature of the heat exchanger leading to low specific use of D–3He increases the fraction of power available for
powers for the propulsion system [5]. Finally advanced propulsion by decreasing the energy and quantity of
fission rockets, such as nuclear pulse, gas core and nuclear neutrons produced and completely eliminates the need
light bulb, are even more theoretical than fusion- relying to breed tritium (T), in stark contrast to the majority of
on technologies or materials that have yet to be developed. current fusion research where the critical fusion reaction is
Some specific advantages of a deuterium–helium-3 precisely D-T. The p–11B aneutronic reaction, though it
fueled (D–3He) aneutronic fusion engine with thrust produces the fewest neutrons of any fusion fuel mixture
augmentation (i.e. the DFD) can be seen in Table 2, where and has abundantly available fuel, is not considered here
it is compared against various engine configurations, because there is strong uncertainty whether net power
including some conceptual designs. The electric propul- could be produced and because stronger magnetic fields
sion options, which accelerate ions using electric fields and higher plasma temperatures would be required. Thus,
with or without magnetic fields, require a separate D–3He is the most promising fuel mixture and is the only
power source and therefore the mass ratios given are one considered below.
 Y.S. Razin et al. / Acta Astronautica 105 (2014) 145–155 147

The D–3He plasma admits both D–3He and deuterium– mission durations considerably longer than the 12.3 year
deuterium (D–D) reactions. Thus, half life of tritium. Our RF plasma heating method (see
Section 3.2 could reduce f p to under 0.5%, by tailoring the
D þ 3 He-4 Heð3:6 MeVÞ þpð14:7 MeVÞ ð1Þ ion energy distributions, based on [20].

D þ D-Tð1:01 MeVÞ þ Hð3:02 MeVÞ ð2Þ

3. Modular fusion engine design
D þ D-3 Heð0:82 MeVÞ þnð2:45 MeVÞ ð3Þ
3.1. Overview
where the values in parenthesis are the energy of that
particular fusion product. The D–3He reaction provides The reactor design we propose differs from [16] in size,
a higher power density than the D–D reactions, and both heating method, and fuel. There, p–11B was selected,
its reaction products are charged, allowing for direct which requires five-times higher ion energies and pro-
control of the exhaust. For a thermal plasma with equal duces far less fusion power per reaction. They also chose
D and 3He densities, the fraction of the fusion energy neutral beams for heating, requiring a plasma volume that
carried by neutrons from the D–D reaction, f p , is 1/3, from is one hundred times larger, and is therefore more costly
which it is difficult to extract useful thrust. If the tritium and less stable. The even-parity rotating magnetic field
fusion products of Eq. (2) also fuse within the plasma, (RMFe ), see [10] and selected by [38], has been shown to
considerably higher fractions of power would be in the have poor energy confinement, resulting in the need for a
undesired neutron channel. To reduce this problematic larger FRC as well. However, increasing the FRC size to the
possibility, two routes have been proposed. The simplest point where the plasma radius is more than 10 times the
way is to reduce the deuterium fraction in the thermal ion Larmor radius will lead to magnetohydrodynamic
plasma from the stoichiometric 1:1 mixture, though it (MHD) instabilities. We selected the odd-parity RMF
would also decrease the power density, if the magnetic (RMFo), instead, which is predicted to promote better
field is held constant. Alternatively, [48] and [31] have energy confinement, hence allow smaller, more stable
proposed an f p reducing method termed T-suppressed engines. The overall engine layout is depicted in Fig. 1.
D–D fusion (or He-catalyzed D–D) in which the tritium is Plasma parameters were chosen by an iterative, self-
rapidly removed from the plasma before it can fuse. The consistent process design around the desired power an
tritium that is captured naturally transmutes to 3He after estimated energy confinement time (1/5 of classical and
which it is injected back into the plasma as fuel. By this radiation losses) and the magnetic field capabilities of
circuitous route, it should be possible to achieve an f p as current high-temperature superconductors, incorporating
low as 5%. However, such a cycle only makes sense for a wide safety margin. Further refinements in the plasma

Fig. 1. Power balance in an aneutronic fusion propulsion system. An RF generator heats the plasma, generating the fusion reaction, which releases
Bremsstrahlung, synchrotron, and neutron radiation. The neutrons are absorbed by the shielding and the X-rays, by the helium blanket. Heat is converted
through a Stirling Cycle engine, where electrical power is recycled back into the craft. Coolant in high-temperature superconducting (HTS) coils absorbs
some heat. Waste heat from the HTS coils and the thermal power conversion subsystem is rejected to space through radiators.
148 Y.S. Razin et al. / Acta Astronautica 105 (2014) 145–155

modeling was performed to reduce neutron wall load. for RMFo heating of ions to 100 keV and above has a radius
These included increasing the 3He/D ratio in the plasma in the range 20–30 cm. This places a lower limit on the
and control of the detailed velocity distributions of the D confinement time required, no worse than a fifth of the
and 3He. For the selected magnetic field, ca. 5 T, a range of classical value, as noted earlier.
3
He and D average energies satisfied the mission require- Ion heating by RMFo is highest near the O-point null
ments, with values of 100 keV and 70 keV being typical. line, near the center of the plasma's magnetic axis, where
The feasibility of fusion itself has been demonstrated by it creates a time-varying azimuthal electric field, [28]. This
the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR), the Joint Eur- periodically accelerates ions into betatron orbits and then
opean Torus (JET), and the Japan Torus (JT-60). TFTR has decelerates them back into cyclotron orbits. Choosing the
generated a record maximum of 10.7 MW, JET produced RMFo's ωRMF and amplitude properly allows ions to be
16.1 MW, with a Q
0:6, and JT-60 achieved a Q Z 1:25 pumped up, repeatedly, to energies near the peak in the
and a record ion temperature of 45 keV (where Q is the D–3He fusion cross-section and then returned to the bulk
fusion energy gain factor or the ratio of nuclear energy temperature. This is a conservative process and satisfies
produced to the energy needed to maintain the plasma). the recirculating energy criterion derived by [44] to
Our confidence in the DFD is furthered by the fact that it is sustain, against collisions, a non-Maxwellian distribution
far smaller and runs cleaner than the mainline fusion that increases the fusion rate and decreases neutron
devices, hence improvements in operations can be made production.
far more quickly and at far lower cost. In a D–3He plasma, the trajectories of RMFo-accelerated
Many physics challenges remain before the RMFo- ions are predicted to form two betatron orbit streams close
heated FRC can be developed into a practical reactor. The to the FRC's O-point null line: a D stream and an
3
predictions of excellent energy confinement, stability, He stream. The deuterium stream ions have half the peak
efficient electron and ion heating, and current drive to energy of the 3He ions, causing non-zero relative velocity
fusion-relevant temperatures must be validated. Substan- between them. The transverse temperature of each beam
tial progress has occurred in the first three areas. In 2010 is considerably lower than the beam's peak energy, hence
and 2012, TriAlpha Energy Corp reported near-classical deuterium ions collide with each other at a far lower
energy confinement time in their FRC, [9] and [56].1 Our center of mass energy than with 3He; accordingly, the
reactor needs energy confinement time only 1/5 as long as D–D neutron production rate falls and f p is reduced, [20].
the classical. In 2007, an RMFo-heated FRC, [22], achieved Further reductions in f p can be gained from the
stable plasma durations 3000 times longer than predicted differential in the energy-dependent fusion rates. As can
by MHD theory [45]; by 2012 that record was extended to be seen in Fig. 2, if the bulk plasma has an average energy
over 100,000 times longer. Finally, theoretical studies by of 70 keV and the RMFo pumps the 3He up by 100 keV
[28,33,23] indicate that RMFo will be able to heat plasma Fig. 2, line a then it will pump the deuterium up by only
electrons and ions to fusion relevant temperatures. These 50 keV, Fig. 2, line b. Thus, several effects—centrally
are promising starts, but much research is needed at peaked betatron orbits, low transverse beam temperature,
higher plasma temperatures and densities and with burn- reduced D-to-3He ratio, and higher 3He energy—combine
ing, i.e., fusing, plasmas. to decrease f p below 0.2% for an RMFo-heated D–3He-
fueled FRC.
Add to these effects that D–3He fusion produces neu-
3.2. The RMFo method trons that have only one-sixth of the energy of those
produced by burning D–T and the larger surface to volume
As stated above, for an FRC reactor to burn its D–3He fuel
mixture, the 3He and D average ion energies must achieve
values of around 100 keV and 70 keV, respectively. If ener- 10−15
getic neutral beam injection were used for achieving this D−T
temperatures, the plasma would have to be over 4 m in D− 3 He
diameter in order to “stop” the injected neutral beam. Such a 10−16
large reactor would produce proportionally large amounts of
σ v (cm3/s)

power, near 1 GW. In RF heating methods, on the other hand, b

power can be absorbed over shorter distances. Using 10−17 a
RMFo allows the diameter of the plasma to be reduced to
D−D
a half meter and produces 1 MW.
In RMFo heating, the maximum ion energy is propor- 10−18
tional to the RMFo frequency, ωRMF . Due to a constraint set
by the RMF-generated current and the FRC's magnetic field
strength, ωRMF decreases as the product of a plasma 10−19 1
density times the square of the plasma radius. Thus, too 10 102 103
large or dense an FRC is not well heated. An optimum FRC Ecm (keV)
Fig. 2. Fusion reaction rates (σv) vs center-of-mass energy (Ecm ) for three
1
Classical confinement time occurs for Coulomb collision driven sets of collision partners. At ion energies below 250 keV, the D–3He fu-
diffusion only. The confinement time of real plasma is often far less than sion rate coefficient increases more rapidly with energy than does the DD
the classical limit, [57]. rate coefficient.
 Y.S. Razin et al. / Acta Astronautica 105 (2014) 145–155 149

ratio ( p 1=radius) for a small FRC compared to a large Table 3

tokamak (20 cm vs. 10 m) and an additional 10,000-fold One megawatt fusion engine. Temperatures are approximations for a
full non-Maxwellian particle distributions generated and sustained by
reduction of neutron power load on the wall is obtained.
the RMFo. The majority of the available electrical power is returned to the
Overall, the shielding requirements for this type of small, RMFo to heat the plasma. The vacuum vessel is sized based on the
clean reactor are far less than for a D–T fueled larger dimensions given below and fashioned from 1/8″ stainless steel plating.
fusion engine. Heat rejection mass is based on aluminum radiators from [29] and
The RMFo method, in addition to reducing neutron Eq. (10) . The RF power generation mass is based on commercially
available units from [55].
production, also offers the possibility of a novel, direct
energy-extraction method from the fusion products. The Parameter Value
same rotating azimuthal electric field that heats the ions
can be used to extract energy from the 3.6 MeV alphas and Beta 0.88
Plasma radius 0.25 m
14.7 MeV protons produced by D–3He fusion. Depending
Plasma length 5.0 m
on phase, a maximum of 2/3 of their energy was seen to be Axial magnetic field 4.7 T
extracted in single-particle Hamiltonian simulations. Ion temperature 100.0 keV
Inclusion of Coulomb scattering or RMF chirping is e  temperature 30.0 keV
expected to increase the number of particles participating Deuterium number density 5.3e þ 13 cm  3
3
He number density 1.6e þ 14 cm  3
in this inverse Landau damping process. The reduction in e  number density 3.7e þ 14 cm  3
particle energy is caused by an extraction of energy by the
Masses
RMFo antenna. Thus, RMFo could provide both a high-
Vacuum vessel mass 800 kg
efficiency way of extracting energy directly from the Magnet mass 260 kg
charged fusion products and maintain the center of mass RF power generation system mass 1050 kg
ion energy for the D–3He collision near the peak of its Heat rejection system mass 385 kg
reactivity, [42]. Thermal power conversion system mass 2200
Shielding mass 1475 kg
Total engine mass 6170 kg
3.3. One megawatt reactor system design Power (Q
2)
Fusion power 2.14 MW
The system design is based on on-going research with RMFo power 1 MW
Bremsstrahlung power 490 kW
the Princeton FRC-2 (PFRC-2) and Magnetic Nozzle Experi-
Synchrotron power 992 kW
ment (MNX) at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. Neutron power 2.59 kW
The PFRC-2 machine is shown in Fig. 3. Based on 1/5 Waste heat 563 kW
classical confinement time, a plasma radius of 25 cm is Available electrical power 1.25 MW
adequate for confining the high energy plasma needed to Propulsion power 1.13 MW

produce 1 MW of fusion power. This radius matches

criteria set by the RMFo heating method. Table 3 displays
energy from the Bremsstrahlung radiation, neutron shield-
all the design and calculated parameters for the 1 MW
ing, a medium- or high-Z material for X-ray absorption,
reactor, with modest changes in these parameters the
and structural support. A cross-section of one realization
fusion power could increase up to 20 MW. The plasma is
of the reactor walls is depicted in Fig. 5.
shaped by the magnetic field: a separatrix divides the
closed-field region (CFR) from the open-field region (OFR).
3.4. Fuel and propulsion subsystem
Field-shaping coils that are magnetic flux conservers
surround the plasma. Between the plasma and inner wall
The fuel subsystem consists of cryogenic tanks, propel-
of the chamber is a scrape off layer (SOL). Fig. 4 illustrates
lant lines, and a fuel heating system. The small amount of
this magnetic field geometry. The chamber wall is com- 3
He needed for such a mission (
0:5 kg, see Table 4) is
posed of a helium cooling blanket for extracting thermal
well within the potential terrestrial production capability
of 26,000 liters per year [42]. In the fueling process, liquid
deuterium and 3He are heated and converted to gases,
injected into the FRC (probably as 10–20 keV neutral
beams [14]), and heated to fusion temperatures. Deuter-
ium propellant is pumped through the scrape off layer
(SOL), where the fusion products rapidly slow down,
exhausting the ash (including any of the undesirable T
formed) and heating the SOL, increasing the thrust.

3.5. Startup

Due to its high energy density, chemical combustion

will be used to produce the power necessary power for
Fig. 3. The Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration 2 device at the
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. The current machine features a
starting the reactor. A few kilograms of H2, which produce
number of field-shaping coils (white) that act as flux conservers, posi- 142 MJ each when combined with O2, is enough for start
tioned axially along the reaction chamber. up. The power released from this reaction is injected the
150 Y.S. Razin et al. / Acta Astronautica 105 (2014) 145–155

Fig. 4. Fusion propulsion system layout. The magnetic field is shaped by field-shaping coils and axial field coils to form an ellipsoidal closed-field region
(CFR) and an open-field region (OFR), between which lies the separatrix. The fusion reaction occurs round the O-point null line, in the CFR, and the
products are ejected into the SOL. Propellant is injected into the gas box and flows through the SOL where it gets heated by the fusion products. The heated
propellant flows out the nozzle coil and forms an exhaust plume, with ion energy Ei .

Fig. 5. One megawatt reactor cross-section. The outer edge of the magnetic fields (B) in the core plasma are surrounded by the SOL and a thin vacuum
layer. Neutron shielding and the heat exchanger system protect the magnet coils, vacuum vessel, and RMFo antenna from radiation damage.

Table 4 3.6. RMFo heating

Spacecraft design parameters. The payload mass is for the James Webb
Space Telescope. kWe is the electrical power that needs to be processed
The RMFo heating system generates RF power propor-
by the thermal power conversion system.
tionally to the 3He cyclotron frequency, such that
Parameter Symbol Value
ZeB
ωRMF ¼ αωic ¼ α ð4Þ
Payload mass mp 6200 kg m
Total dry mass md 12,370 kg
Total fuel & propellant mass mf 353 kg
where Z is the atomic number, B is the magnetic field, e is
3
He mass mHe 0.53 kg the elementary charge, m is the mass of the ion, and
0:01 r α r 0:1. Given the axial magnetic field from Table 3,
Specific mass of cooling system Mr 1.76 kg/kWe
Specific mass of fuel σf 0.03 kg/kg the ion cyclotron frequency for 3He is 61.6 MHz and a 0.6–
6 MHz generator will be required.
Specific power αp 0.18 kW/kg
Thrust T 40 N
The RF subsystem consists of the RF generator, coaxial
Exhaust velocity ue 56.5 km/s cables, directional couplers, tank circuits, antennas, and RF
diagnostics. The RF system must produce enough power to
start and sustain the fusion reactions. When the fusion
plasma, energizes the superconducting coils, and heats the reactor is operating, smaller amounts of RF power are
plasma through the RMFo system. The heat engine and needed because fusion products provide some heating and
incorporated generator would be used with this additional current drive. The RF generator must produce power with
heat source. high efficiency; most commercial units operate around
 Y.S. Razin et al. / Acta Astronautica 105 (2014) 145–155 151

90%, [55]. This is accomplished by operating the power transmitted power is given by
device as a saturated switch. The PFRC-2 has a 200 kW RF
I ¼ I o exp  αt m ð5Þ
system and we estimate a peak startup RF power of 2 MW
and continuous power of 1 MW will be required for the where Io is the initial power, α is the measured attenuation
reactor to produce 2 MW of fusion power. coefficient and tm is the so-called mass thickness, i.e.
density  shield thickness. Tungsten at 150 keV has an
α ¼ 1:389 cm2 =g, therefore a million fold reduction in
3.7. Superconducting flux conservers
X-ray radiation would require a 0.64 cm thick shield [30].
Radial confinement is achieved by the coaxial solenoi-
dal field-shaping coil array, commonly termed flux con- 3.9. Thermal power conversion
servers (FCs), which can be seen in Fig. 3. FCs are
superconducting rings, approximately evenly spaced along As noted above, it is possible to extract energy from the
the reactor length. The FCs in the PFRC-2 employ high- plasma using the RF system. Thermal power from synchro-
temperature superconducting materials set in a liquid tron and Bremsstrahlung radiation can also be converted
nitrogen cooled copper mandrel. For a full discussion on to electrical power using a Stirling cycle power generation
the design, construction, and testing of the PFRC-2's FCs, system [25]. Studies show that it has the best specific
see [39]. power of all thermal energy conversion systems. Other
options are using a Brayton cycle [36] and direct conver-
sion methods [5]. At the temperatures of interest, the
3.8. Reactor chamber and shielding Brayton cycle appears to have a lower specific power and
direct conversion methods have much lower efficiencies.
Even though D–3He is an “aneutronic” fuel, one of its The Bremsstrahlung can be efficiently removed by flowing
D–D side reactions produces 2.45 MeV neutrons. As the helium gas through 10B4C heat exchanger tubes containing
chamber is subjected to neutron bombardment, it corrugated sheets of refractory medium-Z material [24].
becomes susceptible to several distinct changes in its The Bremsstrahlung heats the high-Z materials to about
material properties. The microstructure is altered such 2000 K. A helium coolant extracts this energy and is used
that it becomes up to five times stronger in tensile to drive a high-efficiency thermal cycle. With a thermal
strength when exposed to MeV neutrons. However, at rejection temperature to space of 625 K, this results in a
the same time, this process introduces weakness in the Carnot efficiency, ηC , of 69% [19].
material as it becomes more brittle and prone to cracks
and associated damage. Furthermore, the structure also
3.10. Magnetic nozzle and thrust augmentation
experiences swelling as the atoms are structurally dis-
placed to form voids in the material. In designing the
The magnetic nozzle and thrust augmentation system
reactor chamber, measures must be taken to promote
allow directional control of the plasma and control of the
fracture resistance and accommodate the dimensional
thrust level and exhaust velocity. A magnetic nozzle, as
alterations that occur given the neutron irradiation, [17].
described by [7,54,21], redirects the flow from the FRC to
Many of these shortcomings can be resolved with appro-
free space. The nozzle consists of a throat coil and two or
priate shielding. The low-Z material 10B4C strongly mod-
more additional nozzle coils to allow expansion and
erates neutron energies and attenuates their flux by
acceleration of the flow. Like the FCs, all the coils are
absorption. 10B4C is a very sturdy, stable solid over a very
superconducting but the radii of the magnetic nozzle coils
large range of temperatures that is readily available in
are smaller than those of the FC, as can be seen in Fig. 6.
nature, safe to manufacture, inexpensive, and it does not
exhibit any obvious structural deformities when irradiated.
Since it is transparent to X-rays, Bremsstrahlung radiation
can pass through it to a thermal power conversion system.
To verify boron carbide numerically, Monte-Carlo simula-
tions were performed assuming isotropic and forward
scattering per [8] and using total and absorption cross-
section results from MCNP and JEFF3.1 [2]. Particles were
tracked until reflection or absorption. The simulation
found that less than 20 cm of 10B4C shielding would be
required to protect the electronics from exposures in
excess of one year.
X-ray shielding is also required to absorb stray Brems-
strahlung radiation that is not captured by the thermal
power conversion system described in Section 3.8. Tung-
sten is one of the best attenuators on a per mass basis [34]
and meets many of the material requirements for shielding
including availability, manufacturability, and high tem-
Fig. 6. Magnetic nozzle coil configuration. The throat and nozzle coils
perature capabilities. We calculate that the Bremsstrah- allow the magnetic field lines to shape the weakly-ionized propellant
lung has a maximum energy of
150 keV and the into an efficient exhaust plume.
152 Y.S. Razin et al. / Acta Astronautica 105 (2014) 145–155

Magnetic nozzles have been found to be highly efficient, where md is the dry mass, mf is the mass of the fuel, and
especially with weakly magnetized propellants, with Δu is the total required velocity change. The dry mass
ηplume 4 85% in [35]. consists of the reactor, payload, and fuel tanks. The fuel
Thrust is increased by the addition of propellant, tank size can be found iteratively using this equation's
increasing mass flow and thrust at the expense of specific solution for fuel mass.
impulse [47]. A suitable propellant would be deuterium, The radiator must be able to reject heat from the non-
which would be injected as a cold gas into the gas box and ejected fusion products, Bremsstrahlung radiation, and
from there enter the open-field region. The gas would be neutrons, where
ionized quickly, forming a plasma similar to what is called, P heat ¼ ð1  ηC Þðð1  ηT ÞP fusion þ P Bremsstrahlung þP Synchrotron
in tokamak terminology, a high recycling divertor, or even
þP Neutrons ÞÞ ð10Þ
a detached plasma. The cold plasma will flow around the
outside of the separatrix with electrons picking up energy where Px is the power from a given source and ηC and ηT
from the fusion products and synchrotron radiation as it are, respectively, the Carnot and thrust efficiencies from
passes through the OFR. The shell plasma thus formed and Section 3. Given the specific mass of the cooling system in
heated will be quite similar to that already produced in gas Table 4 from [25], the mass of the total cooling system is
dynamic traps [6], having a density near 0:1–5  1014 per calculated in Table 3. The radiators can be sized using the
cc and an electron temperature of 30–300 eV. The ions will Stefan–Boltzman law, an emissivity (ϵ) of 0.86 as given in
be cooler. As the plasma leaves the reactor, acceleration of [29], with the Stefan–Boltzmann constant σ SB , and a
the ions to an energy 4–8 times the electron temperature rejection temperature, T , of 625 K, the radiator surface
will occur in a double layer near the nozzle throat [21]. area, A, is given by
Once it has passed a few centimeters beyond the nozzle
P heat
throat, the propellant will have acquired the desired 0.2– A¼ ¼ 77 m2 ð11Þ
1.2 keV energy. Within the detached plasma regime,
ϵσ SB T 4
UEDGE simulations have shown efficiencies of at least .
ηT ¼ 0:8 for propellant flow from the gas box to the nozzle The available power and other key mission parameters
for our configuration [15]. are found in Table 4. For any particular total Δu there will
be an optimal ue that minimizes the mission mass, which
4. Example mission can be easily found from the above equations. A concep-
tion of the spacecraft with the JSWT is shown in Fig. 7.
The DFD's performance was simulated in the context of An example trajectory is shown in Fig. 8. This trajectory
a mission to deploy the James Webb Space Telescope in is simulated in a non-dimensional, circular restricted
a 770,000 km halo orbit around the Sun–Earth L2 point [27]. three-body problem for the Sun–Earth/Moon system.
The spacecraft acts as a ferry and returns to low earth orbit A baseline delta-v of 3.1 km/s is required for a spacecraft
for restocking and refueling and then can be re-used on initialized in a GPS orbit with low eccentricity, with an
further missions, including servicing the telescope. The
design parameters of the spacecraft required for this
mission are derived from the equations below and are
listed in Table 4.
The exhaust stream power required by the spacecraft to
make this journey is
P ¼ 12 Tue ð6Þ

where P is power, ue is the exhaust velocity, and T is the

thrust [43]. As can be seen, given a constant power, the
thrust and exhaust velocity can be traded against each
other for mission optimization.
Trajectory optimization depends on the rocket equation
and propellant mass flow to calculate the fuel dynamics.
The propellant mass flow is
T
_ ¼
m ð7Þ
ue
or in terms of power
2P
_ ¼
m ð8Þ
u2e

where m _ is the rate at which mass is exhausted. The rocket

Fig. 7. DFD-powered spacecraft carrying the James Webb Space Tele-
equation is scope. The reactor is attached to the telescope by a pylon. The deuterium
  tanks, located between engine and the telescope, protect the latter from
md þ mf Δu
¼ exp ð9Þ stray neutron radiation. The total engine length shown includes the
md ue propellant tanks.
 Y.S. Razin et al. / Acta Astronautica 105 (2014) 145–155 153

Fig. 8. LEO to Sun–Earth L2 halo orbit trajectory for the DFD-powered spacecraft. This trajectory requires a Δu of 3.1 km/s from an initial altitude of
20,232 km. If the spacecraft was launched from LEO instead, the mission would require an extra Δu of 3.6 km/s and 13.8 days for the outbound spiral.

additional 3.6 km/s required if starting from LEO. Addi- Acknowledgments

tional work on the trajectory optimization and use of lunar
gravity assist may reduce the required delta-v. Thrust is We thank Dr. T. Kornack for calculations on energy
applied for approximately 11 days in a direction normal to extraction by RMFo. This work was supported, in part, by
the plane defined by the Earth-relative position vector and DOE contract No. DE-AC02-09CH11466.
the orbit-normal vector. This causes the spacecraft to
gradually increase the altitude of its Earth orbit as well References
as its eccentricity, spiraling out until it escapes Earth's
gravity. This is followed by a coast arc of nearly a week and [1] Rl-10a-4-2.
then a 14 h insertion burn occurs, decelerating the craft [2] Table of nuclides. Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 2000.
and allowing it to coast into a weakly stable halo orbit [3] Technology, 2013.
[4] M. Andrenucci, F. Paganucci, P. Rossetti, New developments in
about L2 after 37 days. This trajectory was simulated with applied field mpd thrusters, Number IWCP-43-1, Pozzuoli, Italy, June
multiple iterations, adjusting the thrust to control mission 2002.
duration, and changing the fuel mass and associated dry [5] J.A. Angelo, D. Buden, Space Nuclear Power, Orbit Book Company,
Malabar, FL, 1985.
mass according to Eq. (8) until one with a feasible Δu was [6] A. Anikeev, P. Bagryansky, A. Ivanov, A. Karpushov, K. Noack,
obtained. S. Strogalova, Upgrade of the gas dynamic trap: physical concepts
and numerical models, in: Twenty-eighth EPS Conference on Control
Fusion and Plasma Physics, vol. ECA, 25A (2001) 121.
[7] A.V. Arefiev, B.N. Breizman, MHD scenario of plasma detachment in
a magnetic nozzle, Technical Report, Institute. for Fusion Studies,
5. Conclusions University of Texas, July 2004.
[8] A.F. Bielajew, Fundamentals of the Monte Carlo method for neutral and
charged particle transport, The University of Michigan, 〈http://www-per
We have presented the design for the Direct Fusion sonal.umich.edu/bielajew/MCBook/book.pdf〉, September 2001.
Drive based on the field-reversed configuration and RMFo - [9] M. Binderbauer, H.Y. Guo, M. Tuszewski, S. Putvinski, L. Sevier,
heating, using the D–3He reaction as an energy source. As D. Barnes, Dynamic formation of a hot field reversed configuration
with improved confinement by supersonic merging of two colliding
an example, we presented a mission from GPS orbit to a high-compact toroids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 045003.
Sun–Earth L2 halo orbit. Many of the key physics princi- [10] H. Blevin, P. Thonemann, Nucl. Fusion Suppl. 1 (1962) 55.
ples involved have been separately demonstrated. There [11] C. Bramanti, D. Izzo, T. Samaraee, R. Walker, D. Fearn, Very high
delta-v missions to the edge of the solar system and beyond enabled
still remain a number of questions regarding the operation
by the dual-stage 4-grid ion thruster concept, Acta Astronaut. 64
and stability of the reactor, which we hope to answer with (78) (2009) 735–744.
future PFRC and MNX experiments. The size, mass ratio, [12] C. Bramanti, R. Walker, O. Sutherland, R. Boswell, C. Charles, P. Frigot,
M. Orlandi, J. del Amo, D. Fearn, The innovative dual-stage 4-grid ion
specific power, and thrust make the DFD an attractive
thruster concept–theory and first experimental results, in: Fifty-
option for longer missions, such as to Mars, and crucial for seventh International Astronautical Congress, number IAC-06-C4.
allowing safer and faster manned interplanetary missions. 4.7, Valencia, Spain, 2006.
154 Y.S. Razin et al. / Acta Astronautica 105 (2014) 145–155

[13] Busek. Hall Effect Thrusters, 2012. [40] NASA Glenn Research Center, NEXT Ion Propulsion System Development
[14] M. Buttolph, Neutral beam presentation, PPPL SULI Program, 2013. Status and Capabilities, number 14, NSTC, Cleveland, Ohio, 2007.
[15] M.C. Cheong, Analysis of heat and particle flows in the scrape-off [41] F. Paganucci, P. Rossetti, M. Andrenucci, Performance of an Applied
layer of a field-reversed configuration, 2012 Internship Program, Field MOD Thruster, in: 27th IEPC, Electric Propulsion Society,
Program in Plasma Science and Technology, PPPL, October 2012. Centrospazio 01-132, Pasadena, CA, October 2001.
[16] A. Cheung, M. Binderbauer, F. Liu, A. Qerushi, N. Rostoker, F.J. Wessel, [42] G. Pajer, Y. Razin, M. Paluszek, A. Glasser, S.A. Cohen, Modular Aneu-
Colliding beam fusion reactor space propulsion system, in: Space tronic Fusion Engine, in: Space Propuls. 2012. AAF-EAS-CNES, 2012.
Technology and Applications International Forum, number CP699, 2004. [43] M. Paluszek, Y. Razin, G. Pajer, J. Mueller, S.J. Thomas, Spacecraft
[17] O.K. Chopra, Degradation of LWR core internal materials due to attitude and orbit control, Propulsion. 3rd ed. vol. 1, Princeton
neutron irradiation, Technical Report NUREG/CR-7027, Argonne Satellite Systems, Inc, 2012 (Chapter 11).
National Laboratory, December 2010. [44] T. Rider, Fundamental limitations on plasma fusion systems not in
[18] J.W. Clark, G.H. McLafferty, Summary of research on the nuclear light thermodynamic equilibrium, Phys. Plasmas 4 (1997) 1039.
bulb reactor, Technical Report, United Aircraft Research Laboratories, [45] M.N. Rosenbluth, M.N. Bussac, MHD stability of spheromak, Nucl.
1970. Fusion 19 (1978) 489.
[19] S. Cohen, A fusion power plant without plasma-material interac- [46] P. Rossetti, C. Casaregola, M. Andrenucci, 30 kw-class hall thruster: a
tions, Technical Report PPPL-3245, Princeton Plasma Physics Labora- key building block for propulsion needs of future space transporta-
tory, September 1997. tion and exploration, in: IEPC, IEPC-2011, number 211, Wiesbaden,
[20] S. Cohen, C. Liu, Private communication, 2012. Germany, September 2011.
[21] S. Cohen, X. Sun, N. Ferraro, E. Scime, M. Miah, S. Stange, N. Siefert, [47] J.F. Santarius, Lunar 3He, Fusion Propulsion, and Space Development,
in: W.W. Mendell, J.W. Alred, L.S. Bell, M.J. Cintala, T.M. Crabb, R.H.
R. Boivin, On collisionless ion and electron populations in the
Durrett, B.R. Finney, H.A. Franklin, J.R. French, J.S. Greenberg, (Eds.),
magnetic nozzle experiment (MNX), IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 34 (June
Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the Twenty-first Century,
(3)) (2006) 792–803.
September 1992, pp. 75–81.
[22] S.A. Cohen, B. Berlinger, C. Brunkhorst, A. Brooks, N. Ferarro,
[48] M. Sawan, S. Zinkle, J. Sheffield, Impact of tritium removal and 3He
D. Lundberg, A. Roach, A. Glasser, Formation of collisionless high-β
recycling on structure damage parameters in a D-D fusion system,
plasmas by odd-parity rotating magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98
Fusion Eng. Des. 61-62 (November) (2002) 561–567.
(2007) 145002. [49] B.G. Schnitzler, S.K. Borowski, J.E. Fittje, 25,000-lbf thrust engine
[23] S.A. Cohen, A.S. Landsman, A. Glasser, Stochastic ion heating in a options based on the small nuclear rocket engine design, in: AIAA
field-reversed configuration geometry by rotating magnetic fields, (Ed.), Forty-fifth AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference
Phys. Plasmas 14 (2007) 072508. & Exhibition, vol. 5239. AIAA, 2009.
[24] J. Dawson, Advanced Fusion Reactors, vol. B, Academic Press, New [50] D. Shiga, Next-Generation Ion Engine Sets New Thrust Record, 2007.
York, 1981, 453. [51] Space and Tech. RL-10 Specifications, 2012.
[25] M. Dhar, Stirling space engine program, Technical Report NASA/CR- [52] J. Staff, Prometheus project final report, Technical Report 982-
1999-209164/VOL, Glenn Research Center, August 1999. R120461, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, October 2005.
[26] K.M. Edmondson, D. Law, G. Glenn, A. Paredes, R.R. King, N.H. Karam, [53] M. Tajmar, Advanced space propulsion systems.
Flexible III–V Multijunciton solar blanket, Technical Report, Spectro- [54] A.G. Tarditi, L.C. Steinhauer, Plasma flow control in a magnetic
lab, Inc, 2006. nozzle for electric propulsion and fusion scrape-off layer applica-
[27] J.P. Gardner, et al., James Webb space telescope, Space Sci. Rev. 123 tions, number 2C31. 2011 International Sherwood Fusion Theory
(2006) 485–606. Conference, November 2011.
[28] A. Glasser, S.A. Cohen, Ion and electron acceleration in the field- [55] TEKNA, 1 MW Industrial Unit, 2012.
reversed configuration with an odd-parity rotating magnetic field, [56] M. Tuszewski, A. Smirnov, M. Thompson, Field reversed configura-
Phys. Plasmas (2002) 2093–2102. tion experiment through edge-biasing and neutral beam injection,
[29] A. Hertzberg, Thermal Management in Space, Space resources: Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (June (255008)) (2012).
energy, power, and transport, vol. 2, NASA, 1992. [57] J. Wesson, Tokamaks, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.
[30] J.H. Hubbell, S.M. Seltzer, Tables of x-ray mass attenuation coeffi-
cients and mass energy-absorption coefficients from 1 kev to 20 Yosef S. Razin is a mechanical engineer at
mev for elements z ¼1 to 92 and 48 additional substances of Princeton Satellite Systems and earning a
dosimetric interest, 1996. Private Correspondence. PhD in Robotics at the Georgia Institute of
[31] V.I. Khvesyuk, N.V. Shabrov, A.N. Lyakhov, Ash pumping from mirror Technology. He received a BSE in Mechanical
and toroidal magnetic confinement systems, Fusion Tech. 27 (1995) and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton Uni-
406–408. versity and has worked at the Princeton
[32] D. Landau, N. Strange, Near-Earth asteroids accessible to human Plasma Physics Laboratory on the PFRC-2 pro-
exploration with high-power electric propulsion, in: AAS/AIAA ject. He has also worked at the High-Contrast
Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, vol. 11, 446, 2011. Imaging Laboratory at Princeton University
[33] A.S. Landsman, S.A. Cohen, A. Glasser, Onset and saturation of ion and the Subaru Telescope in Hilo, HI. His area
heating by odd-parity rotating magnetic fields in an FRC, Phys. Rev. of interests are clean energy, mechanical
Lett. 96 (2006) 015002. design, artificial intelligence, and robotics. He
[34] R. Lewis, Space shielding materials for Prometheus application, was also lead engineer on the SunStation, a
Technical Report MDO-723-0049, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, solar-powered electric vehicle charging station
January 2006. with battery storage and home power back-up.
[35] M.M. Martinez, On plasma detachment in propulsive magnetic
nozzles, Phys. Plasmas 18 (035504) (2011). Gary Pajer is a senior member of the techni-
[36] L.S. Mason, A power conversion concept for the Jupiter Icy Moons cal staff at Princeton Satellite Systems. He is
Orbiter, Technical Report NASA/TM?2003-212596, Glenn Research also Adjunct Professor of Physics at Rider
Center, September 2003. University in Lawrenceville, New Jersey and
[37] G. McLafferty, H.E. Bauer, Studies of specific nuclear light bulb and at The College of New Jersey in Ewing. He
open-cycle vortex-stabilized Gaseous Nuclear Rocket Engines, Tech- received his Ph.D. in solid state physics from
nical report, NASA, 1968. the University of Pennsylvania. His area of
[38] K. Miller, J. Slough, A. Hoffman, An overview of the star thrust interest has been in fundamental optical
experiment, in: Space Technology and Applications International interactions, as well as optical sources and
Forum, vol. 420, pp. 1352–1358, 〈http://depts.washington.edu/rppl/ detectors. He has contributed to the develop-
programs/stx.pdf〉, 1998. AIP Conference Proceedings. ment of many devices including spectro-
[39] C.E. Myers, M.R. Edwards, B. Berlinger, A. Brooks, S.A. Cohen, Passive meters for research spacecraft, threat
superconducting flux conservers for rotating-magnetic-field driven field- detection systems, photonic devices, medical
reversed configurations, Fusion Sci. Tech. 61 (January (4587)) (2012) 86. devices, and plasma diagnostic systems.
 Y.S. Razin et al. / Acta Astronautica 105 (2014) 145–155 155

Mary Breton was an intern at Princeton Alan H. Glasser is a Senior Principal Research
Satellite Systems and is an undergraduate in Scientist in the Department of Aeronautics
the Materials Science and Engineering and Astronautics at the University of
Department at Massachusetts Institute of Washington in Seattle. He received a BA in
Technology. At MIT, she has worked in the Physics at Columbia College in New York and
PVLab as a member of the Buonassisi Group, an M.S. and Ph.D. in Physics at the University
producing and characterizing photovoltaic of California at San Diego. He has been a
cells with the goal of optimizing the lab Os research staff member at the Princeton
firing process. That role is one of many Plasma Physics Laboratory, a Professor of
positions she has held that have focused on Physics at Auburn University, and a technical
energy, specifically photovoltaics, in various staff member and group leader at Los Alamos
stages and markets. Once she has a B.S. in National Laboratory. He is a Fellow of the
Materials Science and Engineering in hand, American Physical Society. He is internation-
she envisions being a part of the manufacturing or industrial engineering ally known for his work in theoretical and computational plasma physics
industries. with application to magnetic fusion energy, including magnetohydrody-
namic stability and dynamic modeling of fusion plasmas and complex
particle orbits.

Eric Ham was an intern at Princeton Satellite

Samuel Cohen (B.S./Ph.D. Physics, MIT) is
Systems and is a senior at Princeton High
a lecturer with the rank of professor in the
School.
Department of Astrophysical Sciences at
Princeton University and associated faculty
in the Princeton Institute for the Science and
Technology of Materials and the Princeton
Environmental Institute. He serves as co-
director of the Program in Plasma Science
and Technology, School of Engineering and
Applied Science and is Principal Research
Physicist at the Plasma Physics Laboratory
(PPPL). His research interests are in the phy-
sics of field-reversed configuration plasmas,
Joseph Mueller graduated from the Univer- with emphasis on fusion issues. His honors include: Telluride Scholar,
sity of Minnesota with a B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. in General Motors Scholar, and Goodwin Medal for Distinguished Teaching.
Aerospace Engineering. He joined Princeton
Satellite Systems in 2000, where he has
worked in the areas of spacecraft autonomy,
formation flying, high altitude airships, opti-
mization and decision support. He led the
design of the Prisma safe orbit guidance
system and has been the principal investiga-
tor for numerous Small Business Innovative
Research (SBIR) contracts with NASA and
DoD. He recently led a Navy SBIR, developing
a decision support framework that generates
multiple alternative courses of action for satellites and other complex
systems. Joe is now a senior research scientist at SIFT, and lives in
Minneapolis with his wife and three children.

Michael Paluszek is the President of Princeton

Satellite Systems. He received an EAA and SM in
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in 1979, and an SB in
Electrical Engineering from MIT in 1976. He has
worked on the PFRC fusion project and on a
Tokamak-based fusion rocket both with PPPL.
He designed the Attitude Control System for the
OSC Indostar-1 satellite and led the effort to
develop the TDRS momentum management
system for Hughes. Prior to founding Princeton
Satellite Systems in 1992, Mr. Paluszek worked
at GE Astro Space and the Charles Stark Draper
Laboratory.