Vol. 2 (2026)

Articles

Review of Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters: An Advanced Electric Propulsion System

Published 2026-09-16

  • Shezan Ghamat
    • ,
  • Dinesh Kumar Bajaj
    • ,
  • Siddharth Pandi

Shezan Ghamat
Department of Aerospace Engineering, School of Engineering & Sciences, MIT Art Design & Technology University, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Dinesh Kumar Bajaj
Department of Aerospace Engineering, School of Engineering & Sciences, MIT Art Design & Technology University, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Siddharth Pandi
Department of Aerospace Engineering, School of Engineering & Sciences, MIT Art Design & Technology University, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Abstract

Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters (MPDT) represent a promising advancement in electric propulsion, offering high thrust and efficiency at low mass flow rates. This review explores the fundamental principles of MPDT operation, emphasizing that plasma acceleration results from coupled electric-field energy transfer, current flow, and magnetic-field shaping, with the  body force providing directed momentum exchange rather than being the sole source of kinetic energy. The classification of MPDTs into self-field and applied-field configurations is discussed, highlighting their distinct performance characteristics. The impact of different propellants on efficiency, thrust, and specific impulse is analyzed, with a focus on lithium and hydrogen, which have demonstrated thruster/discharge-level efficiencies of up to 69%. Key advancements in electrode design, propellant injection methods, and magnetic field optimization are examined to address challenges such as energy losses, plasma instabilities, and electrode erosion. A comparative evaluation with conventional MPDTs show advantages and limitations for deep-space missions and satellite applications. Based on the reviewed studies, the most critical future engineering direction is extending MPDT operational lifetime by reducing cathode/electrode erosion while maintaining stable and efficient high-current plasma acceleration. Therefore, future work should prioritize erosion-resistant electrode materials, improved thermal management, discharge-stability control, and magnetic-field optimization to improve long-duration reliability.

Keywords

Electromagnetic field, Lorentz force, MPD Thruster, Plasma acceleration, Specific Impulse

PDF

References

  1. Jahn RG. Physics of electric propulsion. Courier Corporation; 2006.
  2. Levchenko I, et al. Perspectives, frontiers, and new horizons for plasma-based space electric propulsion. Phys Plasmas. 2020;27(2). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5109141
  3. Krulle G, et al. Technology and application aspects of applied field magnetoplasmadynamic propulsion. J Propuls Power. 1998;14(5):754-63. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5338
  4. Goebel DM, Katz I. Fundamentals of electric propulsion: ion and Hall thrusters. Jet Propulsion Laboratory Space Science and Technology Series. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology; 2008.
  5. Sasoh A, Arakawa Y. Electromagnetic effects in an applied-field magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. J Propuls Power. 1992;8(1):98-102. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.23448
  6. Myers R. Scaling of 100 kW class applied-field MPD thrusters. In: 28th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit; 1992. p. 3462. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1992-3462
  7. Mantenieks M, Sovey J, Haag T, Raitano P, Myers R, Parkes J. Performance of a 100 kW class applied field MPD thruster. In: 25th Joint Propulsion Conference; 1989. p. 2710. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1989-2710
  8. Lev DR, Choueiri EY. Scaling of efficiency with applied magnetic field in magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters. J Propuls Power. 2012;28(3):609-16. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.B34194
  9. Cassady RJ, et al. Recent advances in nuclear powered electric propulsion for space exploration. Energy Convers Manag. 2008;49(3):412-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2007.10.015
  10. Kodys A, Choueiri E. A critical review of the state-of-the-art in the performance of applied-field magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters. In: 41st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit; 2005. p. 42-7. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2005-4247
  11. Sovey JS, Mantenieks MA. Performance and lifetime assessment of MPD arc thruster technology. In: AIAA, ASME, SAE, & ASEE, NASA Technical Memorandum (Report); 1998. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1988-3211
  12. Giannelli S, Andrenucci M. Azimuthal instability of MPD thruster plasmas and inception of critical regimes. In: 47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit; 2011. p. 58-87. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2011-5887
  13. Petronio F. Plasma instabilities in Hall thrusters: a theoretical and numerical study [PhD dissertation]. Institute Polytechnique de Paris; 2023. Available from: https://inria.hal.science/tel-04401336/
  14. Niewood EH, Martinez-Sanchez M. Quasi-one-dimensional numerical simulation of magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters. J Propuls Power. 1992;8(5):1031-9. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.23589
  15. Liu H, Zheng J, Zhou C, Zou Z, Liu F, Li M, et al. Research on the gradient-field superconducting magnet for magnetoplasmadynamic thruster performance improvement. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci. 2022;50(12):4961-9. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS.2022.3226217
  16. Sankaran K, Choueiri EY, Jardin SC. Comparison of simulated magnetoplasmadynamic thruster flowfields to experimental measurements. J Propuls Power. 2005;21(1):129-38. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.5340
  17. Chelem Mayigué C, Kühn C, Groll R. Performance investigation of an argon fueled magnetoplasmadynamic thruster with applied magnetic field. J Appl Phys. 2018;124(22). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5038421
  18. Tang HB, Cheng J, Liu C, York TM. Study of applied magnetic field magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters with particle-in-cell and Monte Carlo collision. II. Investigation of acceleration mechanisms. Phys Plasmas. 2012;19(7). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4737104
  19. Wu P, Wang Y, Li Y, Zhou C, Sun Y, Gao Y, et al. The performance of a magnetic nozzle enhanced magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. Acta Astronaut. 2024;217:188-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2024.01.041
  20. Wilbur PJ, Jahn RG, Curran FC. Space electric propulsion plasmas. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci. 1991;19(6):1167-79. https://doi.org/10.1109/27.125039
  21. Kagaya Y, Tahara H. Swirl acceleration in a quasi-steady MPD thruster by applied magnetic nozzle. In: The 29th International Electric Propulsion Conference; Princeton University; 2005. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:121160396
  22. Sheshadri TS. Current density on cathode surface of MPD thrusters. IEE Proceedings A (Science, Measurement and Technology). 1992;139(3):125-8. https://doi.org/10.1049/ip-a-3.1992.0022
  23. Choueiri E. Scaling of thrust in self-field magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters. J Propuls Power. 1998;14(5):744-75. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5337
  24. Myers R. Applied-field MPD thruster geometry effects. In: 27th Joint Propulsion Conference; 1991. p. 2342. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1991-2342
  25. O'Reilly D, et al. Electric propulsion methods for small satellites: a review. Aerospace. 2021;8(1):22. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8010022
  26. Heiermann J, Auweter-Kurtz M. Numerical and experimental investigation of the current distribution in self-field magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters. J Propuls Power. 2005;21(1):119-28. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.5227
  27. Wu P, et al. Anode power deposition in applied field magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. J Appl Phys. 2021;130(24). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0065576
  28. Sasoh A, Arakawa Y. Thrust formula for applied-field magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters derived from energy conservation equation. J Propuls Power. 1995;11(2):351-6. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.51432
  29. Paganucci F, Rossetti P, Andrenucci M, Tikhonov VB, Obukhov VA. Performance of an applied field MPD thruster. In: 27th International Electric Propulsion Conference; Electric Rocket Propulsion Society; 2001. p. 1-132. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:59462372
  30. LaPointe M, Strzempkowski E, Pencil E. High power MPD thruster performance measurements. In: 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit; 2004. p. 34-67. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-3467
  31. Saha P, et al. Cryogenics as a cleaner cooling strategy for machining applications: a concise review. Int J Energy Clean Environ. 2022;23(8). https://doi.org/10.1615/InterJEnerCleanEnv.2022038535
  32. Nourin FN, et al. Investigation of jet impingement cooling for gas turbine blade with in-line and staggered nozzle arrays. Int J Energy Clean Environ. 2020;21(2). https://doi.org/10.1615/InterJEnerCleanEnv.2020033479
  33. Zhang Y, et al. Modified electromechanical modeling and parameters analysis of magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. Energies. 2019;12(12):24-8. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12122428
  34. Sovey JS, Mantenieks MA. Performance and lifetime assessment of magnetoplasmadynamic arc thruster technology. J Propuls Power. 1991;7(1):71-83. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.23296
  35. Manna J, et al. Lithium borohydride as a hydrogen storage material: a review. Int J Energy Clean Environ. 2010;11:1-4. https://doi.org/10.1615/InterJEnerCleanEnv.2011002432
  36. Bose TK, et al. Hydrogen energy for a cleaner environment. Int J Energy Clean Environ. 2005;6(3). https://doi.org/10.1615/InterJEnerCleanEnv.v6.i3.40
  37. Guryanov AI, et al. Pure ammonia combustion in a bidirectional swirling flow. Int J Energy Clean Environ. 2024;25. https://doi.org/10.1615/InterJEnerCleanEnv.2024051495
  38. Bedick C, et al. A modeling study on ammonia and ammonia/hydrogen kinetics for gas turbine engines. Int J Energy Clean Environ. 2023;24(8). https://doi.org/10.1615/InterJEnerCleanEnv.2023045330
  39. Chai KB, Shin C, Yoon YD, Seung M, Kwon I. Observation of fast Alfvén wave in KAERI plasma beam irradiation facility using an applied-field MPD thruster. Phys Plasmas. 2024;31(4). https://doi.org/10.1615/InterJEnerCleanEnv.2024051495
  40. Haag D, Auweter-Kurtz M, Fertig M, Kurtz H. Numerical and experimental investigations of magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters with coaxial applied magnetic field. In: 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit; 2006. p. 5015. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2006-5015
  41. Martinez-Sanchez M, Pollard JE. Spacecraft electric propulsion—an overview. J Propuls Power. 1998;14(5):688-99. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5331
  42. Voronov AS, Troitskiy AA, Egorov ID, Samoilenkov SV, Vavilov AP. Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster with an applied field based on the second generation high-temperature superconductors. J Phys Conf Ser. 2020;1686(1):12-23. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1686/1/012023
  43. King D. A review of the multimegawatt MPD thruster and current mission applications. In: 22nd Joint Propulsion Conference; 1986. p. 1437. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1986-1437
  44. Arakawa Y. Steady-state permanent magnet MPD thruster. In: 19th International Electric Propulsion Conference; 1987. p. 10-21. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1987-1021
  45. Myers R, Lapointe M, Mantenieks M. MPD thruster technology. In: Conference on Advanced SEI Technologies; 1991. p. 3568. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1991-3568
  46. Gontar AS, et al. Problems of hydrogen application in space power plants and power propulsion plants. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2006;31(2):167-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.04.035
  47. Pencil EJ, Dankanich JW. Electric propulsion requirements and mission analysis under NASA's in-space propulsion technology project. In: International Electric Propulsion Conference; 2007. IEPC-2007-354. Available from: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20070031690
  48. Muzafarov S, et al. Improving the efficiency of electrostatic precipitators. Int J Energy Clean Environ. 2020;21(2). https://doi.org/10.1615/InterJEnerCleanEnv.2021038266
  49. Aravind B, et al. Recent advancements in microcombustion-based power generators. Int J Energy Clean Environ. 2022;23(2). https://doi.org/10.1615/InterJEnerCleanEnv.2021038266
  50. Troviano M, Oggier GG. Low-cost photovoltaic emulator with a high-dynamic response for small satellite applications. Int J Energy Clean Environ. 2024;25(6). https://doi.org/10.1615/InterJEnerCleanEnv.2024050320
  51. Zheng J, et al. Demonstration of high-temperature superconducting applied field magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters. Research Square; 2024. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3917481/v1
  52. Sharma P, et al. Experimental investigation of a convergent nozzle for thermal homogenization of air. Int J Energy Clean Environ. 2025;26(2):1-2. https://doi.org/10.1615/InterJEnerCleanEnv.2024051422
  53. Fradkin B, Roehling DJ. Thrust stand performance measurements of a lithium fueled applied field MPD arcjet. In: 13th Symposium on the Engineering Aspects of Magnetohydrodynamics; 1973 Mar; Stanford, CA. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:107635193
  54. King D, Rudolph L. 100 kWe MPD thruster system design. In: 16th International Electric Propulsion Conference; 1982 Nov. p. 1897. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1982-1897
  55. Burton RL, Clark KE, Jahn RG. Measured performance of a multimegawatt MPD thruster. J Spacecr Rockets. 1983;20(3):299-304. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.25596
  56. King D. Feasibility of steady-state, multi-megawatt MPD thrusters. In: International Electric Propulsion Conference; 1985 Sep. p. 2004. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1985-2004
  57. Sovey JS, Mantenieks MA, Haag TW, Raitano P, Parkes JE. Test facility and preliminary performance of a 100 kW class MPD thruster. In: Johns Hopkins Univ., The 1989 JANNAF Propulsion Meeting, Volume 1; 1989 May. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:94030225
  58. Tahara H, Kagaya Y, Yoshikawa T. Quasisteady magnetoplasmadynamic thruster with applied magnetic fields for near-earth missions. J Propuls Power. 1989;5(6):713-7. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.23210
  59. Myers RM, Wehrle D, Vernyi M, Biaglow J, Reese S. A preliminary characterization of applied-field MPD thruster plumes. In: Joint Propulsion Conference; 1991 Aug. No. E-6426. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:93707712
  60. Myers RM, Parkes JE, Mantenieks MA. Multimegawatt MPD thruster design considerations. In: AIP Conference Proceedings. 1992;246(1):1279-86. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.41750
  61. Mantenieks MA, Myers RM. 100-kW class applied-field MPD thruster component wear. In: Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion; 1993 Jan. No. NASA-TM-106023. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:52211467
  62. Myers RM. Applied-field MPD thruster performance with hydrogen and argon propellants. J Propuls Power. 1993;9(5):781-4. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.23691
  63. Auweter-Kurtz M, Habiger H, Kurtz H, Schrade H, Sleziona C. High power steady state MPD thrusters. 1993. No. PLTR923054. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:109252478
  64. Tahara H, Kagaya Y, Yoshikawa T. Performance and acceleration process of quasisteady magnetoplasmadynamic arcjets with applied magnetic fields. J Propuls Power. 1997;13(5):651-8. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5216
  65. Choueiri E, Ziemer J. Quasi-steady magnetoplasmadynamic thruster measured performance database. In: 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit; 1998. p. 3472. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1998-3472
  66. Choueiri EY, Ziemer JK. Quasi-steady magnetoplasmadynamic thruster performance database. J Propuls Power. 2001;17(5):967-76. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5857
  67. LaPointe M, Mikellides P. Design and operation of MW-class MPD thrusters at the NASA Glenn Research Center. In: 38th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit; 2002 Dec. p. 4113. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2002-4113
  68. Sankaran K, Jardin SC, Choueiri EY. Comparison of simulated plasma flowfields to experimental measurements for a gas-fed magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. In: 39th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit; 2003 Jul. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:34201683
  69. Haag D, Auweter-Kurtz M, Fertig M, Kurtz H. Development of an applied field magnetoplasmadynamic thruster design supported by numerical simulations at IRS. In: 29th International Electric Propulsion Conference; 2005 Oct. p. 1-14 Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:55694013
  70. Kubota K, Funaki I, Okuno Y. Numerical study of plasma behavior in a magnetoplasmadynamic thruster around critical current. J Propuls Power. 2009;25(2):397-405. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.37198
  71. Boxberger A, Bambach P, Herdrich G, Fasoulas S, Merino M, Ahedo E. Experimental investigation of steady-state applied-field magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters at Institute of Space Systems. In: 48th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit; 2012 Jul. p. 4012. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2012-4012
  72. Albertoni R, Paganucci F, Rossetti P, Andrenucci M. Experimental study of a hundred-kilowatt-class applied-field magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. J Propuls Power. 2013;29(5):1138-45. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.B34688
  73. Miyazaki K, Takenaka S, Funaki I, Horisawa H. Experimental study of a 1-MW-class quasi-steady-state self-field magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. In: The 33rd International Electric Propulsion Conference; 2013 Oct. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:110088888
  74. Koyama N, Suzuki T, Kubota T, Tahara H. Performance characteristics of steady-state MPD thrusters with permanent magnets and multi hollow cathodes for in-space propulsion. In: 33rd International Electric Propulsion Conference, IEPC-2013-094; 2013 Oct; Washington, DC. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:119093189
  75. Boxberger A, Herdrich G. Integral measurements of 100 kW class steady state applied-field magnetoplasmadynamic thruster SX3 and perspectives of AF-MPD technology. In: 35th International Electric Propulsion Conference; 2017 Oct. p. 8-12. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:166222886
  76. Wang B, Tang H, Wang Y, Lu C, Zhou C, Dong Y, et al. A 100 KW class applied-field magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. J Vis Exp. 2018;(142):e58510. https://doi.org/10.3791/58510
  77. Mayigué CC. Numerical investigation of MPD thrusters using a density-based method with semi-discrete central-upwind schemes for MHD equations. Universitaet Bremen (Germany); 2018. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:125122270
  78. Verma A, Ganguli A, Narayanan R, Tarey RD, Sahu D. A compact ECR plasma source thruster. In: XXXIV ICPIG & ICRP-10; 2019.
  79. Ganguli A, et al. A compact ECR plasma source developed at IIT Delhi – physics and applications. Asian J Phys. 2021;30(1):119-35.
  80. Cong Y, Li Y, Wei Y, Zhou C, Ding F, Wang B, et al. The experimental performances of the 100kW MPD thruster with applied magnetic field. 2019. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:220345354
  81. Zheng J, Liu H, Song Y, Zhou C, Li Y, Li M, et al. Integrated study on the comprehensive magnetic-field configuration performance in the 150 kW superconducting magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):20706. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00308-4
  82. Collier-Wright M, Bögel E, Betancourt MLR, Behnke A, Herdrich G. Progress in research and development of superconductor-based applied-field magnetoplasmadynamic technology. 2021. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-3373
  83. Han M, Rana H. Applied-field magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters for deep space exploration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17478. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.17478
  84. Zhou C, Wu P, Song YT, Zheng JX, Li Y, Wang G, Liu HY. Experimental study on performance of 100-kW low temperature superconducting steady-state magnetoplasma-dynamic thruster. Chin Phys B. 2025;34(2):025201. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1056/ad9910
  85. Sun Y, Wang Y, Wang Y, Wu P, Zhang G, Chen Z, et al. Experimental investigation of the electromagnetic acceleration mechanisms in an applied-field magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. Plasma Sources Sci Technol. 2024;33(11):115016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6595/ad9056
  86. Aftab H, Jinxing Z, Liu H, Du Y, Tang Z. Exploring efficiency in next generation high temperature superconducting-enhanced applied field magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters: a combined numerical and experimental study. Acta Astronaut. 2024;223:448-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2024.07.033
  87. Behnke A, Becatti G, Sperber A, Wanke D, Herdrich G. Current density and Lorentz force measurements in the downstream plume of the 100 kW AF-MPD thruster SX3. J Appl Phys. 2025;137(22). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0254076
  88. Chai ZH, Parashar TN. Performance insights into applied-field magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters with the Princeton AF-MPD database. In: AIAA SCITECH 2025 Forum; 2025. p. 0118. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2025-0118
  89. Gangani S, Bagga S, Nagi GS, Thorat S, Sahoo D, Bajaj DK. Numerical investigation of mixing enhancement studies in a circular scramjet combustor. Int J Energy Clean Environ. 2025;26(7). https://doi.org/10.1615/InterJEnerCleanEnv.2025057306
  90. Bajaj DK, Kandula KR, Kansarta S, Vashishtha A, Sahoo D. Computational investigation on scramjet combustor with dual-strut and cavity-based model. In: Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Fluid Power; 2023 Dec; Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. p. 233-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-7388-6_19
  91. Tirila VG, Demairé A, Ryan CN. Review of alternative propellants in Hall thrusters. Acta Astronaut. 2023;212:284-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.07.047
  92. Tirilia VG, Demaire A, Hallock A, Ryan C. The investigation of alternative solid propellants in Hall thrusters. 2021.
  93. Boyd ID, Scavezze K, Cai C, Polk JE, Choueiri EY. Analysis of plume backflow from a lithium magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. In: The 29th International Electric Propulsion Conference (IEPC); 2005 Oct.
  94. LaPointe MR, Pencil EJ. NASA GRC high power electromagnetic thruster program. In: AIP Conference Proceedings. 2004;699(1):388-98. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1649597
  95. LaPointe MR. MW-class thruster experiments at NASA GRC. In: AIP Conference Proceedings. 2003;654(1):525-32. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1541335
  96. Posta SJ, Michels CJ. 20 kA PFN-capacitor bank with solid-state switching. Rev Sci Instrum. 1973;44(10):1540-1. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1685995
  97. Myers R, Soulas G. Anode power deposition in applied-field MPD thrusters. In: 28th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit; 1992 Jul. p. 3463. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1992-3463
  98. Boxberger A, Herdrich G. Integral measurements of 100 kW class steady state applied-field magnetoplasmadynamic thruster SX3 and perspectives of AF-MPD technology. In: 35th International Electric Propulsion Conference; 2017 Oct. p. 8-12.
  99. Beiting E, Cox W, Diamant K, Young J, Spektor R, Weis S, et al. EMI tests of the HEMP thruster propulsion system. IEPC-2013-120. 2013.
  100. Sarmiento CJ, Sankovic JM, Freitas J, Lynn PR. RHETT2/EPDM Hall thruster propulsion system electromagnetic compatibility evaluation. In: International Electric Propulsion Conference; 1997 Dec. No. E-10997.
  101. Polk JE, Pancotti A, Haag T, King S, Walker M, Blakely J, Ziemer J. Recommended practice for thrust measurement in electric propulsion testing. J Propuls Power. 2017;33(3):539-55. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.B35564
  102. Haag T. Design of a thrust stand for high power electric propulsion devices. In: 25th Joint Propulsion Conference; 1989 Jul. p. 2829. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1989-2829
  103. Markusic T, Jones J, Cox M. Thrust stand for electric propulsion performance evaluation. In: 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit; 2004 Jul. p. 3441. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-3441
  104. Mackey J, Hall SJ, Haag T, Peterson PY, Kamhawi H. Uncertainty in inverted pendulum thrust measurements. In: 2018 Joint Propulsion Conference; 2018. p. 4516. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-4516
  105. Morales-Ospino R, Celzard A, Fierro V. Strategies to recover and minimize boil-off losses during liquid hydrogen storage. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2023;182:113360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113360
  106. Simonini A, Dreyer M, Urbano A, Sanfedino F, Himeno T, Behruzi P, et al. Cryogenic propellant management in space: open challenges and perspectives. npj Microgravity. 2024;10(1):34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41526-024-00377-5
  107. Hastings LJ, Bolshinskiy LG, Hedayat A, Flachbart RH, Sisco JD. Liquid methane testing with a large-scale spray bar thermodynamic vent system. No. NASA/TP-2014-218197. 2014.
  108. Züttel A. Materials for hydrogen storage. Mater Today. 2003;6(9):24-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-7021(03)00922-2
  109. Tutolo L, Lorenzi S, Boccelli R. Modeling and optimization of applied-field magnetoplasmadynamic technology for NEP. Aerotec Missili Spazio. 2026;105(5):771-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42496-026-00312-9
  110. Maeshima D, Mori R, Inoue S, Tsuchiya Y, Kinefuchi K. MPD thruster with a strong applied field up to 0.5 T using cryogenic fluid-cooled magnetic coil. J Electr Propuls. 2025;4(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44205-025-00110-8
  111. Zheng J, Du Y, Aftab H, Liu H, Li M, Zhu L, et al. High performance of high-temperature-superconducting MPD thrusters: analytical MHD modeling and experimental demonstration. Natl Sci Rev. 2026;13(2):nwaf589. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaf589
  112. Tkachenko Y, Ciardi A, Khiar B. Power and efficiency of a self-field magnetoplasmadynamic thruster estimated with resistive MHD simulations. J Electr Propuls. 2025;4(1):43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44205-025-00144-y
  113. Han X, Tang H, Wang Y, Li J, Cao J. Spectroscopic diagnosis and simulation analysis of tungsten cathode erosion during the start-up process for a magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. Vacuum. 2023;218:112548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2023.112548
  114. Schrade HO, Auweter-Kurtz M, Kurtz HL. Cathode erosion studies on MPD thrusters. AIAA J. 1987;25(8):1105-12. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.9750
  115. Zhang X, Zhou C, Ke X, Wang H, Wang G, Yang Z, et al. Modulating crystal plane orientation to enhance the ablation resistance of lanthanum-tungsten cathode for magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. J Mater Res Technol. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2026.01.217
  116. Wang G, Li Y, Zhou C, Wei Y, Kong C, Zheng X, et al. Endurance-test and theoretical prediction of a rare earth nanocathode for the applied field magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. Plasma Sci Technol. 2023;25(10):104005. https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-6272/aceac6