Lifetime Assessment of the NEXT Ion Thruster

Ion thrusters are low thrust, high specific impulse devices with required operational lifetimes on the order of 10,000 to 100,000 hr. The NEXT ion thruster is the latest generation of ion thrusters under development. The NEXT ion thruster currently has a qualification level propellant throughput requirement of 450 kg of xenon, which corresponds to roughly 22,000 hr of operation at the highest throttling point. Currently, a NEXT engineering model ion thruster with prototype model ion optics is undergoing a long duration test to determine wear characteristics and establish propellant throughput capability. The NEXT thruster includes many improvements over previous generations of ion thrusters, but two of its component improvements have a larger effect on thruster lifetime. These include the ion optics with tighter tolerances, a masked region and better gap control, and the discharge cathode keeper material change to graphite. Data from the NEXT 2000 hr wear test, the NEXT long duration test, and further analysis is used to determine the expected lifetime of the NEXT ion thruster. This paper will review the predictions for all of the anticipated failure mechanisms. The mechanisms will include wear of the ion optics and cathode s orifice plate and keeper from the plasma, depletion of low work function material in each cathode s insert, and spalling of material in the discharge chamber leading to arcing. Based on the analysis of the NEXT ion thruster, the first failure mode for operation above a specific impulse of 2000 sec is expected to be the structural failure of the ion optics at 750 kg of propellant throughput, 1.7 times the qualification requirement. An assessment based on mission analyses for operation below a specific impulse of 2000 sec indicates that the NEXT thruster is capable of double the propellant throughput required by these missions

NEXT Ion Thruster Thermal Model

As the NEXT ion thruster progresses towards higher technology readiness, it is necessary to develop the tools that will support its implementation into flight programs. An ion thruster thermal model has been developed for the latest prototype model design to aid in predicting thruster temperatures for various missions. This model is comprised of two parts. The first part predicts the heating from the discharge plasma for various throttling points based on a discharge chamber plasma model. This model shows, as expected, that the internal heating is strongly correlated with the discharge power. Typically, the internal plasma heating increases with beam current and decreases slightly with beam voltage. The second is a model based on a finite difference thermal code used to predict the thruster temperatures. Both parts of the model will be described in this paper. This model has been correlated with a thermal development test on the NEXT Prototype Model 1 thruster with most predicted component temperatures within 5 to 10 C of test temperatures. The model indicates that heating, and hence current collection, is not based purely on the footprint of the magnet rings, but follows a 0.1:1:2:1 ratio for the cathode-to-conical-to-cylindrical-to-front magnet rings. This thermal model has also been used to predict the temperatures during the worst case mission profile that is anticipated for the thruster. The model predicts ample thermal margin for all of its components except the external cable harness under the hottest anticipated mission scenario. The external cable harness will be re-rated or replaced to meet the predicted environment

RP-2 Thermal Stability and Heat Transfer Investigation for Hydrocarbon Boost Engines

A series of electrically heated tube tests were performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center s Heated Tube Facility to investigate the use of RP-2 as a fuel for next generation regeneratively cooled hydrocarbon boost engines. The effect that test duration, operating condition and test piece material have on the overall thermal stability and materials compatibility characteristics of RP-2 were evaluated using copper and 304 stainless steel test sections. The copper tests were run at 1000 psia, heat flux up to 6.0 Btu/in.2-sec, and wall temperatures up to 1180 F. Preliminary results, using measured wall temperature as an indirect indicator of the carbon deposition process, show that in copper test pieces above approximately 850 F, RP-2 begins to undergo thermal decomposition resulting in local carbon deposits. Wall temperature traces show significant local temperature increases followed by near instantaneous drops which have been attributed to the carbon deposition/shedding process in previous investigations. Data reduction is currently underway for the stainless steel test sections and carbon deposition measurements will be performed in the future for all test sections used in this investigation. In conjunction with the existing thermal stability database, these findings give insight into the feasibility of cooling a long life, high performance, high-pressure liquid rocket combustor and nozzle with RP-2

NASA's Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) Prototype Model 1R (PM1R) Ion Thruster and Propellant Management System Wear Test Results

The results of the NEXT wear test are presented. This test was conducted with a 36-cm ion engine (designated PM1R) and an engineering model propellant management system. The thruster operated with beam extraction for a total of 1680 hr and processed 30.5 kg of xenon during the wear test, which included performance testing and some operation with an engineering model power processing unit. A total of 1312 hr was accumulated at full power, 277 hr at low power, and the remainder was at intermediate throttle levels. Overall ion engine performance, which includes thrust, thruster input power, specific impulse, and thrust efficiency, was steady with no indications of performance degradation. The propellant management system performed without incident during the wear test. The ion engine and propellant management system were also inspected following the test with no indication of anomalous hardware degradation from operation

Thermal Development Test of the NEXT PM1 Ion Engine

NASA's Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) is a next-generation high-power ion propulsion system under development by NASA as a part of the In-Space Propulsion Technology Program. NEXT is designed for use on robotic exploration missions of the solar system using solar electric power. Potential mission destinations that could benefit from a NEXT Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) system include inner planets, small bodies, and outer planets and their moons. This range of robotic exploration missions generally calls for ion propulsion systems with deep throttling capability and system input power ranging from 0.6 to 25 kW, as referenced to solar array output at 1 Astronomical Unit (AU). Thermal development testing of the NEXT prototype model 1 (PM1) was conducted at JPL to assist in developing and validating a thruster thermal model and assessing the thermal design margins. NEXT PM1 performance prior to, during and subsequent to thermal testing are presented. Test results are compared to the predicted hot and cold environments expected missions and the functionality of the thruster for these missions is discussed

Environmental Testing of the NEXT PM1R Ion Engine

The NEXT propulsion system is an advanced ion propulsion system presently under development that is oriented towards robotic exploration of the solar system using solar electric power. The subsystem includes an ion engine, power processing unit, feed system components, and thruster gimbal. The Prototype Model engine PM1 was subjected to qualification-level environmental testing in 2006 to demonstrate compatibility with environments representative of anticipated mission requirements. Although the testing was largely successful, several issues were identified including the fragmentation of potting cement on the discharge and neutralizer cathode heater terminations during vibration which led to abbreviated thermal testing, and generation of particulate contamination from manufacturing processes and engine materials. The engine was reworked to address most of these findings, renamed PM1R, and the environmental test sequence was repeated. Thruster functional testing was performed before and after the vibration and thermal-vacuum tests. Random vibration testing, conducted with the thruster mated to the breadboard gimbal, was executed at 10.0 Grms for 2 min in each of three axes. Thermal-vacuum testing included three thermal cycles from 120 to 215 C with hot engine re-starts. Thruster performance was nominal throughout the test program, with minor variations in a few engine operating parameters likely caused by facility effects. There were no significant changes in engine performance as characterized by engine operating parameters, ion optics performance measurements, and beam current density measurements, indicating no significant changes to the hardware as a result of the environmental testing. The NEXT PM1R engine and the breadboard gimbal were found to be well-designed against environmental requirements based on the results reported herein. The redesigned cathode heater terminations successfully survived the vibration environments. Based on the results of this test program and confidence in the engineering solutions available for the remaining findings of the first test program, specifically the particulate contamination, the hardware environmental qualification program can proceed with confidenc

Environmental Testing of the NEXT PM1 Ion Engine

The NEXT propulsion system is an advanced ion propulsion system presently under development that is oriented towards robotic exploration of the solar system using solar electric power. The Prototype Model engine PM1 was subjected to qualification-level environmental testing to demonstrate compatibility with environments representative of anticipated mission requirements. Random vibration testing, conducted with the thruster mated to the breadboard gimbal, was executed at 10.0 Grms for 2 minutes in each of three axes. Thermal-vacuum testing included a deep cold soak of the engine to temperatures of -168 C and thermal cycling from -120 to 203 C. Although the testing was largely successful, several issues were identified including the fragmentation of potting cement on the discharge and neutralizer cathode heater terminations during vibration which led to abbreviated thermal testing, and generation of particulate contamination from manufacturing processes and engine materials. Thruster performance was nominal throughout the test program, with minor variations in some engine operating parameters likely caused by facility effects. In general, the NEXT PM1 engine and the breadboard gimbal were found to be well-designed against environmental requirements based on the results reported herein. After resolution of the findings from this test program the hardware environmental qualification program can proceed with confidence

Inhaled steroids with and without regular salmeterol for asthma: serious adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between use of beta₂-agonists and increased asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) are safe, particularly when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review that now includes data from two large trials including 11,679 adults and 6208 children; both were mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  OBJECTIVES: To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomised participants with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and ICS versus the same dose of ICS. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trials registers for unpublished trial data. We also checked FDA submissions in relation to salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was 10 October 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-design randomised trials involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who were randomised to treatment with regular salmeterol and ICS (in separate or combined inhalers) versus the same dose of ICS of at least 12 weeks in duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors, from ClinicalTrials.gov, and from FDA submissions. We assessed our confidence in the evidence according to current GRADE recommendations. MAIN RESULTS: We have included in this review 41 studies (27,951 participants) in adults and adolescents, along with eight studies (8453 participants) in children. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low for all-cause events, and we obtained data on SAEs from all study authors. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) were given salmeterol and fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.DeathsEleven of a total of 14,233 adults taking regular salmeterol and ICS died, as did 13 of 13,718 taking regular ICS at the same dose. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). In other words, for every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, one death occurred among those on ICS alone, and the corresponding risk among those taking salmeterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths).No children died, and no adults or children died of asthma, so we remain uncertain about mortality in children and about asthma mortality in any age group.Non-fatal serious adverse eventsA total of 332 adults receiving regular salmeterol with ICS experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause, compared to 282 adults receiving regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.14 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.33; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, 21 adults on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 23 adults (95% CI 20 to 27).Sixty-five of 4229 children given regular salmeterol with ICS suffered an SAE of any cause, compared to 62 of 4224 children given regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, 15 children on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 15 children (95% CI 11 to 22).Asthma-related serious adverse eventsEighty and 67 adults in each group, respectively, experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE. The pooled Peto OR was 1.15 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.59; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, five receiving ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those on salmeterol and ICS was six adults (95% CI 4 to 8).Twenty-nine children taking salmeterol and ICS and 23 children taking ICS alone reported asthma-related events. The pooled Peto OR was 1.25 (95% CI 0.72 to 2.16; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, five receiving an ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those receiving salmeterol and ICS was seven children (95% CI 4 to 12). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a difference in the risk of death or serious adverse events in either adults or children. However, trial authors reported no asthma deaths among 27,951 adults or 8453 children randomised to regular salmeterol and ICS or ICS alone over an average of six months. Therefore, the risk of dying from asthma on either treatment was very low, but we remain uncertain about whether the risk of dying from asthma is altered by adding salmeterol to ICS.Inclusion of new trials has increased the precision of the estimates for non-fatal SAEs of any cause. We can now say that the worst-case estimate is that at least 152 adults and 139 children must be treated with combination salmeterol and ICS for six months for one additional person to be admitted to the hospital (compared to treatment with ICS alone). These possible risks still have to be weighed against the benefits experienced by people who take combination treatment.However more than 90% of prescribed treatment was taken in the new trials, so the effects observed may be different from those seen with salmeterol in combination with ICS in daily practice

Regular treatment with formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular treatment with salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is characterised by chronic inflammation of the airways and recurrent exacerbations with wheezing, chest tightness, and cough. Treatment with inhaled steroids and bronchodilators can result in good control of symptoms, prevention of further morbidity, and improved quality of life. However, an increase in serious adverse events with the use of both regular formoterol and regular salmeterol (long-acting beta₂-agonists) compared with placebo for chronic asthma has been demonstrated in previous Cochrane Reviews. This increase was statistically significant in trials that did not randomise participants to an inhaled corticosteroid, but not when formoterol or salmeterol was combined with an inhaled corticosteroid. The confidence intervals were found to be too wide to ensure that the addition of an inhaled corticosteroid renders regular long-acting beta₂-agonists completely safe; few participants and insufficient serious adverse events in these trials precluded a definitive decision about the safety of combination treatments. OBJECTIVES: To assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that have randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular formoterol and an inhaled corticosteroid versus regular salmeterol and an inhaled corticosteroid. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries to identify reports of randomised trials for inclusion. We checked manufacturers' websites and clinical trial registers for unpublished trial data, as well as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to formoterol and salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was  24 February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included controlled clinical trials with a parallel design, recruiting patients of any age and severity of asthma, if they randomised patients to treatment with regular formoterol versus regular salmeterol (each with a randomised inhaled corticosteroid) and were of at least 12 weeks' duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review, extracted outcome data from published papers and trial registries, and applied GRADE rating for the results. We sought unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events from study sponsors and authors. The primary outcomes were all cause mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events. We chose not to calculate an average result from all the formulations of formoterol and inhaled steroid, as the doses and delivery devices are too diverse to assume a single class effect. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one studies in 11,572 adults and adolescents and two studies in 723 children met the eligibility criteria of the review. No data were available for two studies; therefore these were not included in the analysis. Among adult and adolescent studies, seven compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 7764), six compared formoterol and beclomethasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1923), two compared formoterol and mometasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 1126), two compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone (N = 790), and one compared formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and budesonide (N = 229). In total, five deaths were reported among adults, none of which was thought to be related to asthma. The certainty of evidence for all-cause mortality was low, as there were not enough deaths to permit any precise conclusions regarding the risk of mortality on combination formoterol versus combination salmeterol. In all, 201 adults reported non-fatal serious adverse events. In studies comparing formoterol and budesonide to salmeterol and fluticasone, there were 77 in the formoterol arm and 68 in the salmeterol arm (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.59; 5935 participants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and beclomethasone studies, there were 12 adults in the formoterol arm and 13 in the salmeterol arm with events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.08; 1941 participants, 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). In the formoterol and mometasone studies, there were 18 in the formoterol arm and 11 in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.20; 1126 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One adult in the formoterol and fluticasone studies in the salmeterol arm experienced an event (Peto OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 3.10; 293 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Another adult in the formoterol and budesonide compared to salmeterol and budesonide study in the formoterol arm had an event (Peto OR 7.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 375.68; 229 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). Only 46 adults were reported to have experienced asthma-related serious adverse events. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low due to the small number of events and the absence of independent assessment of causation. The two studies in children compared formoterol and fluticasone to salmeterol and fluticasone. No deaths and no asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in these studies. Four all-cause serious adverse events were reported: three in the formoterol arm, and one in the salmeterol arm (Peto OR 2.72, 95% CI 0.38 to 19.46; 548 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, for both adults and children, evidence is insufficient to show whether regular formoterol in combination with budesonide, beclomethasone, fluticasone, or mometasone has a different safety profile from salmeterol in combination with fluticasone or budesonide. Five deaths of any cause were reported across all studies and no deaths from asthma; this information is insufficient to permit any firm conclusions about the relative risks of mortality on combination formoterol in comparison to combination salmeterol inhalers. Evidence on all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events indicates that there is probably little to no difference between formoterol/budesonide and salmeterol/fluticasone inhalers. However events for the other formoterol combination inhalers were too few to allow conclusions. Only 46 non-fatal serious adverse events were thought to be asthma related; this small number in addition to the absence of independent outcome assessment means that we have very low confidence for this outcome. We found no evidence of safety issues that would affect the choice between salmeterol and formoterol combination inhalers used for regular maintenance therapy by adults and children with asthma