Advances in Dense Plasma

Focus
R&D for Space Power and
Propulsion

George H. Miley

NPRE, University of Illinois, Urbana,

Illinois, 61821
Presented at:
COFE 2006
 Acknowledgements
Largely based on:
An Investigation of Bremsstrahlung Reflection in a Dense Plasma Focus
Propulsion Device
G.H. Miley, Robert Thomas, F.B. Mead
Presented at STAIF 2006
and
On Use of D-He3 in Fusion Space Propulsion
G. H. Miley, H. Momota, J. Shrestha, S. Krupakar Murali and John
Santarius
Presented at ANS Summer Meeting 2006
and
Propulsion and Power Generation Capabilities of a Dense Plasma Focus
(DPF) Fusion System for Future Military Aerospace Vehicles
Sean D. Knecht, Robert E. Thomas, Franklin B. Mead, George H. Miley,
and
H. David Froning
Presented at STAIF 2006
Prospects for Fusion propulsion
Francis Thio
Report to FSAC on non-electrical uses of fusion, 2003.
 Outline
Why Fusion Propulsion?

Prior Fusion Propulsion Design Studies

Dense Plasma Focus Background

Applicability for Space Propulsion

DPF System Studies

Study of a key issue, Bremsstrahlung

Conclusions
 Equations of Rocket Dynamics – two issues =
exhaust velocity and jet power
v
Rocket momentum equation
t
dv
m = −m vex
dt Constant power - Rocket
Exhaust on full blast
velocity
Variable exhaust velocity 1/ 3
Rocket energy equation  
to match the  2 
3 2 m s
time t f =  profile 
Flight acceleration 0
1 1 2 m 
Pjet = m vex = m a vex
 2
 Pjet  m − 1 
0

2 2   1 
m0 - m1 = propellant mass burnt on the outbound
Jet power 2
m1 µ µ 
= q + D + q2 +  D 
m0 2  2 
Specific jet power = Pjet / m
mD mF
(kW/kg) µD = , q=
m0 m0 + mF
 Available from Other Propulsion
Options

7
10
Fusion
Exhaust velocity (m/s)

6
10 10 kW/kg

1 kW/kg

5 0.1 kW/kg
10
Nuclear
(fission)
Gas-core fission
electric
4
10 Nuclear
thermal

3 Chemical
10
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 1 10
Thrust-to-weight ratio

JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute

 Fusion Propulsion
Would Enable Attractive Solar-System Travel

Comparison of trip times and payload

fractions for chemical and fusion rockets
Fast human transport Efficient cargo transport

JFSJFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute

1999
Travel
Nearest approach to Earth
Enormous distances (in 106 km)
Physiological hazards Mercury 92
Costs Venus 41
Mars 77
Zero-g
Jupiter 629
Muscle and skeleton deterioration Saturn 1279
set in after about 100 days Uranus 2725
Cosmic Radiation Neptune 4,354
Pluto 5,750
Leukemia and other cancer risks
become significant after about one
year in-orbit
 The Challenges of Human Interplanetary
Travel
Mission to Jupiter: IMLEO = 640 tonnes; Outbound payload = 200 tonnes;
Return payload = 80 tonnes; Mass of propulsion system = 160 tonnes
Vehicle Trajcetory

Specific Flight Peak Peak Accel- Total 800

Jet Power time exhaust velocity eration jet 700

power 600

500

(kW/kg) (days) velocity (km/s) (g) (GW)

yyy (Gm)
400

300

0.1 710 173 15 0.00008 0.016 200

1 330 334 33 0.0003 0.16 100

10 153 806 71 0.0017 1.6 -200 -100

0
0 100 200 300 400

100 70 1740 154 0.008 16

xxx (Gm)

Propellant exhaust vel > 500 km/s

Specific jet power > 10 kW/kg
 Robotic Mission to the Outer Planets –
Requires less power, but still MWs

Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptun Pluto

Thrust (N) 8,686 8,680 8,677 8,677 e
8,685 8,676
Isp (sec) 70,500 70,500 70,500 70,500 70,500 70,500
Power (MW) 3,004 3,002 3,001 3,001 3,003 3,000
Total of Flight 27 72 109 173 229 231
(days)
IMLEO (kg) 127,59 168,78 198,32 244,32 238,92 286,74
Final Mass (kg) 0
100,00 6
100,00 6
100,00 7
100,00 4
100,00 0
100,00
Propellant Mass 0
27,590 0
68,786 0
98,326 0
144,32 0
138,92 0
186,74
(kg)
Payload Mass (kg) 69,962 69,984 69,995 7
69,994 4
69,966 0
69,998
Acceleration (g’s) 0.0069 0.0052 0.0045 0.0036 0.0037 0.0031
Power System 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Spec. Mass (kg /
kW)
Propulsion May Offer an Earlier
Opportunity for Application of Fusion
The technical priorities for applying fusion to propulsion are somewhat
different from those for terrestrial power generation, though the underlying
plasma science and technologies have considerable overlap
A qualitatively different, if not wider, window of technical options may be
available to fusion for propulsion

Propulsion Terrestrial Power

Generation
Conversion of fusion energy Conversion of fusion energy
to thrust to electricity
Mass per unit jet power Cost per unit electrical energy
Lower Q may be acceptable Q is a driver for COE
Vacuum without boundary is Vacuum with material
freely available in space boundary is a necessary part
of the engineering
 Fusion PropulsionConcepts : Past R&D Efforts
(Prior to 1999)

1958 - 1978 Fusion Program NASA Rocket Propulsion,” J

Lewis Research Center
Roth, J. R., “A Preliminary Study of Thermonuclear. British
Planetary Society, 18, 99, (1961)
Norman R. Schulze, “Fusion Energy for Space Missions
in the 21st Century,” NASA Technical Memorandum
4298, Aug 1991.
Hyde, Wood and Nuckolls, Laser fusion propulsion, (1972)
Borowski, Spherical torus: 1000 tonne (1987)
Santarius, Tandem mirror: 1200 tonne (1988)
Orth, Laser fusion propulsion, VISTA: 1800 tonne (1987)
Teller, et al., Dipole: 1300 tonne (1992)
Carpenter, et al., Thermal barrier tandem mirror: 700 tonne
(1993)
Nakashima, et al, Field reversed configuration: 1000 tonne
(1994)
 Fusion Propulsion Concepts Presented
at NASA Fusion Propulsion Workshop
2000

1 Spherical torus 10 Z-pinch

2 Electric tokamak 11 Field reversed configuration
3 Levitated dipole 12 Magnetokinetic compression
of compact toroid
4 Electric field bumpy torus 13 Spheromak
5 Laser driven ICF (with fast 14 Colliding-beams FRC
ignition)
6 Antimatter catalysed fusion 15 Tandem mirror
7 Dense plasma focus 16 Gasdynamic mirrors
8 Magnetized target fusion 17 Inertial Electrostatic Fusion
9 Magnetically compressed
compact toroid fusion
Physics Design “Drivers” for Fusion
Propulsion

Fusion driver and fuel

Conversion of fusion energy into thrust
 Example: Magnetic nozzle, Direct Energy conversion
Remote re-start capability becomes key issue
Radiation shielding of crew and critical
components – with a-neutronic fuels, space radiation sets
limits for shielding
Enabling fusion technologies – confinement sys
for a-neutronic fuels must be developed
Thermal management – must capitalize on high
rejection temperature to minimize weight.
Costs at Initial Orbit in Space (IOS) – set bottom
line
Costs at Initial Orbit in
Space
Mission cost = Propulsion cost + Costs to achieve mission
objectives
Propulsion cost
= Costs at IOS* + In-space Cost + Cost at Destination
Costs at IOS = Launch cost + Cost of producing the
propulsion unit
This must be reasonable ($5 B ~ $10 B?)
Launch cost ~ $10,000/kg - today’s cost
~ $1,000/kg in 2025
Cost of producing the propulsion unit ~ $20 K - $100K/kg
For a propulsion cost < $5 B ⇒ Mass of propulsion system
< 250 tonnes

(*IOS – Initial Orbit in Space)

 Examples of concepts for some fusion propulsion engines
weighing less than 80 MT Dry studies prior to 2000

Colliding-beams FRC: FIGURE 1. Image of 100 MWe IEC Fusion Powered Spacecraft with Ion Thruster Propulsion.

13 MT, 68 MW (UCI)
MTF: 80 MT, 4 GW IEC: ? MT, ? MW
(jet power)

Magnetic BURN CHAMBER

Expansion Nozzle (Rc ~ 13 mm) IMPAC
Accelerator Source

1m

~ 20 m
5m

Flowing Liquid Metal

Heat Exchanger/ Breeder
MKCCT: 20 MT, 300 MW (UW)
VISTA: Fusion Propulsion Using Inertial-Confinement Fusion
(ICF)

Charles Orth, et al., “The VISTA Spacecraft--Advantages of ICF for

Interplanetary Fusion Propulsion Applications,” IEEE 12th SOFE
JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute
A-neutronic fusion fuels are
essential

D+T = n + He4 = std DOE fuel

Problems
 Neutrons – radiation effects and
materail damage
 Tritium – radiactive and must breed
 Direct conversion of energy to thrust
low
Aneutronic – all charged particles
D-He3; p-B11;He3-He3
Fusion cross sections illustrate
the issues for going to a-
neutronic fuels.
UIUC Design study of D-He3
IEC propulsion unit

Illustrates promises and issues

Intended for relative near tern –
uses DEC and proven ion thruster
design
IEC shares many features in
common with DPF
Image of Fusion Ship II, 750 MWe IEC
Fusion Powered Manned Spacecraft
with Ion Thruster Propulsion
Launching -
Geosynchronous Orbit
Orbital path
leaving earth
showing earth as
Geosynchronous the central circle.
Orbit
Earth
Initial orbit is at
Geosynchronous
orbit with
spacecraft
spiraling from that
orbit outward to
an escape velocity
of 2.1 km/s at 29
earth radii.
Orbital Path Entering
Jupiter’s Orbit and Reverse
Thrust Braking
Orbital path
entering
Jupiter’s orbit
showing
location of
stages of the
transfer,
achieved at full
Europa’s
Orbit thrust to
minimize time
Several Current Spacecraft
Designs & Two Fusion
Spacecraft Designs
IEC Fusion Ship II
500 MT
Isp=35,000
Thrust= 4369 N While fusion ship
II deminsions are
much large than
IEC Fusion Ship I
500 MT
Isp=16,000
for a Saturn
Thrust= 1028 N
rocket it must be
Saturn V
2,766 MT
remembered that
Isp=300
Thrust= 33,362 kN Fusion ship II is
Space Shuttle
2,041 MT
Isp=350
for a much more
Thrust=31,054kN
demanding Jupiter
round trip.
Dense Plasma Focus (DPF) – a key
approach to p-B11

One of first fusion concepts - originally

developed in the mid 1950’s

Prior to ITER funded by US Government

(NASA, DOE).

Development still in early stages ; to

date experiments with units < 1 MJ
have shown the primary feasibility of
the concept
 Operational Phases of DPF
• Breakdown phase –
Capacitor bank
discharged across
electrodes ionizing gas
and forming a plasma
sheath

• Rundown Phase – J x B
force accelerates plasma
sheath down length of
anode

• Pinch Phase – Collapsing

sheath focuses towards
the central axis of the
anode forming a plasma
where fusion reactions
take place
DPF Suitability for Space
Propulsion

 Ideally suited for p-B11 – High density pinch plasma and no B

field induced radiation loses

 Can provide the necessary exhaust velocity;

Specific Impulse from 2000 s to 106 s, trading off lower
values with higher thrust

Can provide the necessary specific energy: ~ 100 times

higher than conventional chemical systems
DPF Rocket Schematic – Advantages = simple
and low mass structures; efficient thrust
development
DPF Model Assumptions set
requirements
 Fine structure fusion dominates giving
high Ti/Te ratio

 Pinch lifetimes, can be extended an order

of magnitude longer than present
experimental values

Fusion fuel and charged fusion products

are confined during entire pinch

Refection of Bremsstrahlung above 50%

Using these assumptions we
obtain:

For 500 kN, 2000 sec Isp p-B11 DPF,

the required pulse power, energy,
and voltage are:
Power = 800 MW
W = 80 MJ
V0 = 400 kV
Q = 3.07
Physics Issues Ascertained From
Study:

Investigation of achieving a high Ti/Te

Methods of increasing pinch lifetime

Reflection of Bremsstrahlung

Direct energy conversion of plasma; e.g.

B field penetration
A Recent Study of Key p-B11 Issue
by R. Thomas EAFB- Bremsstrahlung
Control

Investigate reflection physics for

high energy Bremsstrahlung
radiation emission during p-11B
fusion
Identifies 2 potential approaches -
Hohlraum Cavities and Super
Multilayers
For 500 kN Thrust Level, ~ 10 µm of Reflector
Material Ablated per Day (10 Hz Pulsed
Continuously)

Classical Heat
Transfer Analysis
formulated under
conditions of
thermonuclear
interest
(Kammash) used
to estimate wall
ablation and
temperatures
Plasma wall temperatures greatly exceed 106 K---
hence plasma forms at wall- Favorable to prevent
ablation and use Holhraum physics for reflectivity

Most severe
thermal
loading at
end of
discharge
when plasma
“dumped” on
wall

For T > 105 K,

plasma forms
at wall- it
becomes an
intense
radiator itself
Use extensive data from Inertial Confinement
Fusion
(ICF) Hohlraum target studies
Cylindrical gold-
plated cavities.

Laser used to
implode fuel pellet

Confinement Arises
because cavity
walls heat up and
becomes strong
emitter of soft x-ray
radiation

For numerical
modeling laser
replaced by
fictitious source of
x-rays inside cavity-
in our case this is
the p-Haan,
11
B reaction
S., “On Target Designing for Ignition,”
X-Ray Reemission Model

At t = 0 body is
brought into
contact with
thermal bath

For t > 0,
nonlinear wave
runs into
undisturbed
material

Heat wave
overtaken by
shockwave and
ablative heat
wave forms

ReemissionPakula,
flux R., and Sigel, R., Phys. Fluids 28, 232 (1985).
At a Bremsstrahlung Flux of 1013 W/cm2
the radiation is reflected ~10 times
before being lost

Radiation
reemission
increases with
incoming flux

10 reemissions
before being
lost appear
possible
Alternate concept - Reflective Multilayers
Provide Reflection over a Wide Energy
Range

Layer spacing
gradually
decreased as a
function of depth

Lower energy
photons reflected
at surface

Tungsten, Lead,
Carbides typically
used

Joensen, K.D., Nuc. Instr. and Methods in Phys. Research B, 132, pg. 221,
1997.
Multilayer Structures Provide
Superior Reflectivities over pure
Gold

Tungsten/ Silicon Mirror

Used- reflectivities
above 30% in entire
band

Cutoff at in
performance 69.5 keV

Tungsten/ Silicon
Carbide successfully
reflect over 100 keV
(DPF photons > 200
keV)

Limited to very small

angles
Joensen, K.D., Nuc. Instr. and Methods in Phys. Research B, 132, pg. 221,
1997.
Limitations of both
concepts
Reemission in Hohlraum cavities increase with
incoming flux- however high flux leads to higher
deterioration of inner walls

Hohlraum physics does not provide reemission

over broad energy range

Multilayers currently in use would be destroyed at

radiation levels found in p=11B DPF fusion

Multilayers limited to small angles ( < 5 mrad)

Conclusions –
Bremsstrahlung
Radiation reemitted 10-18 times
depending on Hohlraum size- this may
correspond to the 50% re-absorbtion
rate previously assumed - further
inverse Bremsstrahlung work must be
done

Additional multilayer work must be

done at high energies (> 150 keV)
Issue #2 – Confinement and low Te/Ti – filament
dominated DPF pinches are the key approach

DPF filament formation

(Nardi, et al.)
Lerner’s theory for filament
dynamics, forming plasmoids
Proposed experiment – controlled
filament type of DPF “cage Z-pinch”

Micro-projections anchor
filament locations
Filament spacing controllable in
Dielectric Barrier Discharges
(DBD)

Filament spacing as a function of

voltage in the DBD.
Filament DPF simulates the Sandia
Labs “Z Machine”, but is much more
compact

The Z-pinch principle has been demonstrated with

Sandia’s Z accelerator, where very large energy output
(1.8 MJ of x-rays) and power levels (up to 230 trillion
watts) have been achieved by imploding wire arrays
with high load currents (20 MAs).
Propulsion and Power Generation
Capabilities of a Dense Plasma Focus
(DPF) Fusion System for Future
Military Aerospace Vehicles

Presented by Sean D. Knecht for the

Space Technology & Applications
International Forum (STAIF – 2006),
Albuquerque, NM
15 February 2006
Evaluation of System Details –
assumes reflection and
filaments
With system geometry and performance
determined and capacitor energy assumed,
other system parameters were calculated
Multiplying capacitor energy by specific energy
(1.0 – 15.0 kJ/kg) the capacitor mass was
found
 This mass was assumed to be half of the system
mass
 Thrust-to-weight ratio were then be determined
Capacitor bank volume and system volume
were found by assuming a capacitor mass
density
 Current state-of-the-art is ~ 3.0 MJ/m3
 Assuming for advances in the next 20 years, a value
of 5.0 MJ/m3 was assumed for this study
Additional power for electricity was found by
Results – Baseline Design
Promising

System details that resulted in total

system masses between 15 and 25
metric tons were reported
Reported baseline parameters
 Q = 3.0
 ηprop = 0.9
 Thrust = 500 – 1,000 kN
 Isp = 1,500 – 2,000 s
 Capacitor specific energy = 10.0 – 15.0
kJ/kg
 Thrust-to-weight ratio (T/W) = 20.83 – 44.12
kN/MT
Can we do it???
DPF development, vs. tokomak fusion, has
distinct the advantage of allowing small size
near-term “products”

Examples -

neutron source for NAA, HS, etc.

Xray source

Light source for semiconductor

mfg.
 Longer term -- Ultra Hot Fusion Plasmas Provide
Many Materials Processing Capabilities

B.J. Eastlund and W.C. Gough, “The

Fusion Torch--Closing the Cycle from
JFS 2005 Fusion Technology Institute
Final Comments
Fusion Propulsion is one of the main options
for deep space propulsion
Of the various fusion propulsion schemes, the
DPF, initially using D-He3, then p-B11 is
an outstanding option.
Much R&D is needed, but compared to the
present DOE terrestrial fusion power
programs, the DPF development would be
cheaper and faster. Also, there are
intermediate uses possible, including as a
neutron source and for a light source for
semiconductor mfg.
Thank you for your
attention
for further information or
discussion, contact
George H. Miley
University of Illinois, UC Campus
100 NEL, 103 S. Goodwin Ave.
Urbana, Illinois, 61802 USA
217-3333772; [email protected]
 Visit my poster to discuss =The 500-W
UIUC/NPL NaBH4/H2O2 Fuel Cell

The active area per cell was 144 cm2 and 15 cells were employed to provide a total stack active area of
2160 cm2.