IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 41, NO.

5, MAY 2013

1047

Electromagnetic Augmentation Can

Reduce Space Launch Costs
Ian R. McNab, Fellow, IEEE

AbstractA study was undertaken to determine if a groundbased electromagnetic (EM) acceleration system could provide a
useful reduction in launch-to-orbit costs compared with current
large chemical boosters, while increasing launch safety and reliability. The study evaluated EM augmentation of the chemical boost
capability for a two-stage-to-low-Earth-orbit system, with the extreme case being a complete EM launch. Several EM acceleration
options are available, but railguns were chosen for this study. The
second stage of the system was assumed to be a chemical rocket
or a reusable scramjet to carry a reusable orbiter vehicle into
low-Earth orbit. EM launch systems of this type will be governed
by the same fundamental principles as tactical guns, but one major
difference will be that the EM accelerator track, which may be
several kilometers in length, will not be powered only from the
breech as in a tactical gun, since electrical resistive losses will be
unacceptably large. To overcome this, a distributed feed system
will be required. This study shows that the capital cost of the
pulsed-power system for the EM accelerator will dominate the
system economics. Present pulsed-power approaches will require
many launches to offset the capital cost. Novel pulsed-power
concepts or low-cost manufacturing approaches will need to be
developed for such a concept to be economically attractive.
Index TermsEconomics, electromagnetic (EM) launch, pulsed
power, space launch.

I. I NTRODUCTION

HILE there have been remarkable advances in space operations within the last half century, the cost of placing
people or equipment in space remains very high and presents
a significant barrier to the widespread use of space. Definitive
costs on launch to space are hard to find, but advertised costs
for the space shuttle were about $22 000 per kilogram, while
a 2001 survey of costs for 16 U.S., European, and Russian
large chemical boosters capable of launch to low-Earth orbit
(LEO) put the average costs in the range of $8000$10 100
per kilogram for masses in the range of 70020 000 kg [1],
[2]. It is not clear whether these costs include the amortized
cost of the entire launch operations or whether they are solely
for each booster. It is apparent that, until new commercial
vendors become operational, most launch facilities will have
been established and financed by national governments largely
on strategic basis; hence, it is not easy to identify the true costs.
The intent of this study was to assess whether a useful
contribution to lowering space launch costs could be made
Manuscript received October 2, 2012; accepted January 15, 2013. Date of
publication February 5, 2013; date of current version May 6, 2013. This work
was supported by the Institute for Advanced Technology.
The author is with the Institute for Advanced Technology, The University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78759 USA (e-mail: mcnab@utexas.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPS.2013.2241452

using electromagnetic (EM) techniques. There are various ways

in which this might be done, but the approach studied here was
to electromagnetically augment the velocity achievable with a
first-stage chemical booster so that its massand the cost of
its fuelcould be reduced. We assumed only a two-stage basic
booster configuration for simplicity in this study; hence, a break
point was reached in the analysis when the EM accelerator
reached the burnout velocity of the first stage. At that point and
beyond, only the second chemical stage would be accelerated.
The final limit to this process, as the EM acceleration velocity
is increased, would be direct EM launch into LEO.
There are three main categories of EM launch techniques,
namely, linear motors, coil guns, and railguns. Linear motors
are generally limited to modest velocitiesElectromagnetic
Aircraft Launch System (EMALS)-like applications for aircraft
carrier operation are typically 100 m/s or less, and even the
highest speeds reached by magnetically levitated trains are
not much higher. Coil guns reached about 1 km/s some over
a decade ago [3], but the technology is not easy and there has
been relatively slight recent work. In addition, there may be
geometric constraints for launching large masses. Railguns
have demonstrated the capability to achieve very high forces
and accelerations, leading to high velocities (> 2000 m/s) with
laboratory systems at modest masses (< 1 to 10 kg).
Thus, there is no immediately available experience with a
large-scale EM launch system, and we have to extrapolate
considerably from the present database. However, the community has a good understanding of the main scaling parameters;
hence, first-order estimates can be made, as discussed below.
There are two ways to use EM techniques. The approach
evaluated below, which is probably the easiest, is to use EM
acceleration to essentially replace the first stage of a multistage
rocket system. For this, the requirement is to launch a large
and somewhat fragile mass to a moderate velocity within the
permissible acceleration limits. A second approach is to launch
directly into space, as studied in the recent Air Force Office
of Scientific Research Multidisciplinary University Research
Initiative effort [4]. This is technically more difficult but has
the advantage of largely eliminating the need for chemical
propulsion, except for the near- and in-orbit maneuvering.
In both cases, the cost of electricity used during launch is
vanishingly small; hence, the main issue is the capital cost of
the electrical equipment required. The main components of the
electrical system are the pulsed-power system and the accelerator track. As with any large industrial system, a carefully
designed control subsystem will be required to ensure correct
operations, timing, etc., and provide for safe operation and
benign shutdown in the event of a fault. Handling large amounts

0093-3813/$31.00 2013 IEEE

1048

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 41, NO. 5, MAY 2013

Fig. 1. Conceptual launch arrangement.

rotational speed to the launch velocity (the maximum is about

400 m/s).
Potential candidates include Manus Island and Emirau Island, off the northern coast of Papua New Guinea and within 3
of the equator, as well as Mt. Wilhelm in the Bismarck Range
of New Guinea, which reaches an elevation of 4509 m [8]. One
advantage of a site that is close to the equator is that it will be
free from tropical storms and cyclones, since they do not cross
the equator.
For completeness, it may also be noted that Powell and Maise
suggested an elevated track approach for a magnetic levitation
system (StarTram) several years ago, as illustrated in Fig. 5
[9]. Depending whether the acceleration level was high (for
materials only) or low (acceptable for humans), the proposed
track with an evacuated launch tube would be 1001000 km in
length and reached a height of 20 km.
III. A PPROACH AND R ESULTS

Fig. 2. Launch system from the 1951 movie When Worlds Collide.

of electrical energy will require care but is probably much less

hazardous and labor intensive than the equivalent operations
currently undertaken with large liquid-propellant boosters using
many metric tons of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.
II. S YSTEM C ONCEPT
It is often difficult to develop a completely new concept; this
is true here, since the system under consideration here (see
Fig. 1) is somewhat similar to that illustrated in Fig. 2 from
the 1951 movie When Worlds Collide [5]. A more scientific
version of this concept was described in Mankins paper on the
MagLifter concept shown in Fig. 3 [6], in which the first-stage
vehicle was accelerated on a maglev track.
The concept under investigation here is broadly one that has
the arrangement shown in Fig. 1. It uses an inclined track on
which a large rocket with payload is electromagnetically accelerated to a speed at which the chemical stage is ignited. This
amounts to partially or totally replacing the first and, perhaps,
the second stage of a multistage booster. Although some NASA
studies have suggested locating a 3-km track at sea level at the
Cape Canaveral launch site (see Fig. 4 [7]), the preferred site
has the track located on high mountain to minimize aerothermal
heating and aerodynamic drag losses when the vehicle exits
the launch tunnel (as illustrated in Fig. 1). A location close
to the equator would maximize the contribution of the Earths

The velocity required to maintain LEO is shown in Table I.

The required delta-V for launch from the surface of the Earth
when gravity and aerodynamic drag (totaling about 25%) are
added to the orbital values is also shown. These are the launch
objectives.
The design of a notional two-stage-to-orbit chemical rocket
system was analyzed, using the approach suggested by
Braeunig [10]. The goal was to place a useful payload of
3000 kg into a 600-km orbit. Once the specific impulse of the
fuels used for the two stages is chosen, the exhaust velocity
ratio is fixed and the masses of the fuel required to achieve
the orbit insertion can be determined, given some assumptions
about the structural masses of the two rockets. A summary of
this calculation for one example is shown in Table II.
Assumptions made in these calculations include.
The specific impulses assumed are fairly normalmore
aggressive numbers could have been chosen.
The structural mass of the rockets is assumed to have
the form of a fixed structure plus a variable amount that
depends on the fuel load. The values chosen are quite
arbitrary at this stage and could be over- or underestimates.
The next step is to evaluate how the total launch mass would
be reduced as an EM boost is provided. The first objective might
be to increase the EM boost velocity until the first stage, massing 160 t, is completely eliminated, leaving only the second
chemical stage to fly into orbit. To do this, it would be necessary
to reach the same velocity as the first stage, i.e., 3503 m/s,1
while accelerating the mass (41 t) of the second stage only.
However, it is worthwhile to evaluate what the system trades
are for lower EM boost velocities, since these could reduce
the electrical power and energy requirements. The step beyond
this is also worth evaluating, since boosting to an even higher
velocity would reduce the fuel load needed to achieve orbit with
the second stage, with the ultimate goal being a total EM launch
with no chemical energy. Table III and Fig. 6 illustrate the effect
of the EM boost on the launch mass.
1 No allowance is made for rocket thrust variation with altitude in these
calculations.

MCNAB: ELECTROMAGNETIC AUGMENTATION CAN REDUCE SPACE LAUNCH COSTS

Fig. 3.

1049

MagLifter concept (after Mankins [6]).

TABLE I
LEO O RBITAL V ELOCITY AND D ELTA-V

Fig. 4. NASA concept for an EM-launched two-stage system located at the

Kennedy Space Center, Orlando, FL, USA [7].

Fig. 5.

StarTram emerging from launch tube [8].

TABLE II
N OTIONAL T WO -S TAGE C HEMICAL ROCKET TO
P LACE 3000 KG I NTO A 600- KM LEO

1050

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 41, NO. 5, MAY 2013

TABLE III
E FFECT OF EM B OOST ON L AUNCH M ASS

Fig. 7. U.S. Sprint missile.

TABLE IV
S PRINT M ISSILE D ETAILS

Fig. 6. Effect of EM boost velocity (m/s) on a two-stage rocket launch mass

(in metric tons) to place 3000 kg payload in a 600 km Earth orbit.2

The next aspect of the problem is to assess what is needed to

achieve these EM boost velocities. For simplicity, it has been
assumed that a configuration will be used, in which multiple
parallel railgun-like structures will be used to drive a pusher
plate that acts to accelerate the launch package from the back.
In practice, a much more sophisticated arrangement is likely
to be used, in which there will be a distributed connection
from railgun-accelerated shuttles to a structure that supports
and accelerates the chemical rocket system.
An important parameter in the study is the acceleration
level that can be tolerated by the chemical rocket and the
aeroshell structure, as well as the payload. Present rocket structures are designed to tolerate forces created by accelerations
of only a few gees when launching astronauts and delicate
satellites or spacecraft. Increasing their capability to withstand higher launch accelerations will undoubtedly increase the
structural mass and complexity. One known experience point
is that, in the early 1970s, the United States developed, and
briefly fielded, the solid-propellant Spartan and Sprint missiles,
which were designed to carry nuclear warheads for defense
against incoming ballistic missiles. Spartan was a Mach 4
missile but Sprint was successfully launched at 100 G and
achieved Mach 10 in 5 s (see Fig. 7 and Table IV [11]).
From this, it can be concluded that such accelerations can be

tolerated by a rocket structure that is capable of successful

launch.3
A considerably more ambitious approach is being taken by
Bozic and his collaborators in Germany, in connection with
the proposed Silver Eagle project, with the goal to launch a
5-kg payload to a height of 100 km using an EM-accelerated
rocket [12], [13]. In this case, representative payload packages
containing hybrid rocket fuel and electronic components have
been test launched at up to 4500 G [14]. Following this, the
same group successfully launched and recovered a 155-mm
howitzer shell containing a solid fuel and onboard strain gauge
and acceleration sensor at 3300 G to validate this approach (see
Fig. 8) [15].
High accelerations require high accelerating pressures and
hence high (multiple-megampere) railgun currents. While this
may be acceptable for relatively small launch packages, such
as the 90 kg under consideration by the German group, it is
unlikely to be feasible for payloads of several to tens of metric
tons. For this study, four acceleration levels were examined, i.e.,
50, 100, 200, and 300 G. In general, lower accelerations imply
lower EM forces and currents but necessitate longer tracks to

2 The total mass placed into orbit is actually 6160 kg including the assumed
additional structure.

3 Note that the calculations shown in Tables II and III assume liquid fuels
rather than solid propellants.

MCNAB: ELECTROMAGNETIC AUGMENTATION CAN REDUCE SPACE LAUNCH COSTS

1051

TABLE V
EM L AUNCHER PARAMETERS FOR 300 G

Fig. 8. Schematic of test of dynamic behavior of rocket structure components

under high acceleration (after Bozic et al [12]).

Fig. 9. Track length (km) and quarter current (MA) as a function of EM boost
acceleration (m/s) for 300 G.

reach a given velocity. Fig. 9 and Table V illustrate the results

of these calculations for the 300-G acceleration level, showing
how the track length and one-fourth of the required total current
vary as a function of EM boost velocity for the vehicle system
required to place a 3000-kg payload into a 600-km LEO.4
One-fourth of the total current (I/4) is shown on the assumption that a four-rail system would be used to provide symmetric
driving forces on a pusher system for the rocket assembly. Up
to a terminal velocity of 3500 m/s, two chemical stages will be
used. Above 3500 m/s, a single chemical stage will be used.5
4 The total mass placed into orbit is actually 6160 kg, including the assumed
additional structure.
5 Assumptions relating to the structural mass are the reason for the slight
nonsmoothness in the I/4 curve in Fig. 10 when the transition from two stages
to one stage occurs at 3500 m/s.

The I/4 current required for this case is about 9.8 MA for
the shortest track (170 m long), corresponding to a 1-km/s EM
boost launch velocity, and falls to 2.4 MA for the longest track
(10.9 km in length) for the 8-km/s boost. These currents are
approximately within the range under consideration by several
organizations for large-caliber long-range railguns.
The corresponding acceleration times for the constant acceleration of 300 G for this example range from 0.34 s for the
shortest track to 2.72 s for the longest track and highest velocity,
as shown in Table V. A distributed pulsed-power energy storage
and distribution system is therefore required to provide the
appropriate current and pulse length and to supply voltage that
is large enough to overcome the maximum back electromotive
force (EMF) and resistive and inductive losses. The back EMF
is usually dominant and generally reaches its peak value at the
muzzle end of the EM launch section. Pulse lengths and IL v
values are shown in Table V as a function of launch velocity for
the case of a constant acceleration of 300 G.
Beyond 1000 m/s, the back EMF is relatively constant, with
a maximum value of about 20 kV. This is well within the range
of conventional high-voltage engineering practice and implies
that the pulsed-power system output voltage be in the range of
about 2530 kV.
IV. C OST E STIMATES
The next step is to estimate the system cost. For comparison, the Kistler Aerospace Corporation K-1 two-stage-toorbit missile shown in Fig. 10 was designed with a first stage
of 249 500 kg and a second stage of 133 800 kg for a total
launch mass of 383 300 kg. This rocket was designed to put
a mass of 6000 kg into LEO when launched on a 60 azimuthal
trajectory. Per discussion with one of the company principals
[16], the production cost objective was about $300 M. The
intent was that the launch vehicle componentsboth the first
stage and the orbital vehiclewould be reusable, with appropriate maintenance for engines, parachutes, etc., for 50100
launches. For comparison, space shuttles are the only space
vehicles that have been reused. Each of these orbiters cost about
$1.7 B, and the average launch cost was $450 M. The largest
numbers of missions were flown by Endeavor (39) and Atlantis
(33) [17]. The Kistler business model indicated that the K-1
could break even financially when compared with a Delta II
rocket (which costs $65$100 M per disposable copy) after

1052

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 41, NO. 5, MAY 2013

Fig. 11. Launch cost ($M) dependence on EM accelerator muzzle velocity

(m/s).

B. Cost of Accelerator Track

Fig. 10. Kistler two-stage-to-orbit rocket design concept.

five or six launches and could save perhaps $0.5 B after twelve
launches [18].6
The factors that need to be addressed to create an economic
model for the system outlined here are described below.
A. Cost of Pulsed Power
To the first approximation, the amount of pulsed power
needed for the EM accelerator stage can be estimated from the
launch energy of the accelerated mass of the one or two reusable
rocket stages divided by the launcher efficiency.
An EM launcher efficiency of 90% was assumed for
these calculationsconsiderably higher than present laboratory breech-fed large-caliber railguns (which operate in the
30%40% efficiency range) but feasible with a carefully designed distributed energy feed system. Such a system is mandatory for the track lengths being discussed here.
For this system, a pulsed-power system cost of $0.1 per
joule has been assumed. This is somewhat lower than currently
available systems, which are typically $0.3$0.5 per joule
in megajoule quantities, but at the multiple-gigajoule energy
levels under consideration here for a cooled system, this cost
should be feasible if dedicated fabrication facilities were to be
built.
The specific choice of a pulsed-power system has not
been made. The presently favored systems for laboratory
research use capacitors with their associated pulse-shaping
inductors and switches. However, lower cost large-scale alternatives might be pulsed generators [19], [20], inductive systems [21], or superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES)
technology.

6 In the end, although this concept seemed attractive, the company was unable
to raise sufficient funding to continue the project to completion [16].

For the track, we have assumed a cost of $100 000 per

meter. This compares with the cited cost for a new high-speed
(111-m/s) train link between London and Birmingham (U.K.)
of about $278 000 per meter for a system that involves building
tunnels for approximately half the track length [22].
C. Pulsed Power and Track Amortization
We have assumed that the track will be reasonably stable
and reliable and that it can operate without major rebuild over
10 000 launches. No account has been taken of interest payments over the system lifetime, given the present low prevailing
rates.
D. Launch Vehicle Costs and Amortization
The manufacturing costs were based on the predicted K-1
costs, which averaged $783 per kilogram for a reusable twostage vehicle (see Fig. 11). It was assumed that the launch
vehicles could be reused ten times before replacement.
E. Fuel Costs per Launch
It was assumed that the rocket fuel was a stoichiometric
liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen mixture.7 Liquid oxygen costs
were taken as $0.21 per kilogram and liquid hydrogen as $5.50
per kilogram [23].
F. Electricity Costs per Launch
An electricity cost of $0.05 per kilowatthour was used
for charging the pulsed-power system prior to a launch.
This is within the range of current utility costs, particularly
where dedicated facilities are used or hydroelectric power is
available.
With the aforementioned assumptions, the cost of the system
components is as shown in Table VI, and the total cost per
launch is shown as a function of the exit velocity from the EM
acceleration section in Fig. 11. The benchmark case with no
7 Rockets

actually run slightly fuel rich.

MCNAB: ELECTROMAGNETIC AUGMENTATION CAN REDUCE SPACE LAUNCH COSTS

TABLE VI
OVERALL L AUNCH C OSTS

EM acceleration is similar to that assessed for the K-1, which

was $17$20 M per launch.
V. D ISCUSSION
Subject to the assumptions previously discussed, the results
in Table VI and Fig. 11 show that:
The cost of electrical power to launch even these massive
two-stage rocket systems is negligible.
The cost of rocket fuel is also relatively unimportant in the
total economics (although no account has been taken of the
cost of handling cryogenic or otherwise hazardous fuels).
There is a tradeoff between the EM track length, the acceleration that can be tolerated by the launch vehicle(s), and
the requirements for the electrical pulsed-power system
needed to create the EM accelerating forces. As the EM
launch velocity is increased, the size of the chemical boost
mass required by the primary vehicle is reduced, which
reduces its mass and cost. However, the size and cost of the
pulsed-power system needed to drive the EM accelerator
increases.
Given that the pulsed power and track costs can be amortized over a large number of launches, their overall contribution to the launch cost can become small compared with
the cost of even a reusable rocket launch system.
The net result is that the EM acceleration system is potentially capable of reducing the cost of launch (with the
present assumptions) by a factor of more than four.
As shown in Table VII, clearly the biggest priority is to
find a way to engineer a very substantial reduction in energy costs compared with todays technology; otherwise,
an extremely high capital investment will be needed. If a
distributed power supply structure consisting of (for example) 50100 modules were installed, each with the capability to feed 1%2% of the total energy required to the
track (which is typically 250 GJ), a reasonable approach
might be to use pulsed rotating machines or SMES energy
storage modules or a batteryinductor system. Each of
those options might have an intrinsic cost significantly
lower than capacitor modules. Mitigating features for this
application include that it is a fixed installation and that
infrequent use means that adiabatic operation (i.e., no
cooling) should be possible.

1053

TABLE VII
C OST OF P ULSED P OWER AND EM T RACK

Clearly much more work is necessary to explore this concept.

Many of the assumptions that have been made were arbitrary
or based on incomplete analysis. Other areas that have not
been explored include the aerothermal limits of the vehicle
as it is accelerated to a high Mach number in the relatively
dense atmosphere at ground level. Thus, there is scope for
system tradeoffs to determine the best operating points at which
launch benefits can be achieved while ensuring useful cost
reductions.
Lest the assumption of 10 000 launches on the EM accelerator track seem extreme by current railgun technology experience, it is perhaps worth noting that Hanada et al. [24] proposed
a low-cost launch-to-space initiative involving 300 flights per
year with 50 vehicles (a total of 15 000 flights per year) with
50 passengers per flight. The assumed vehicle lifetime was ten
years (half that of a wide-body commercial jet aircraft). Of
course, this has not yet occurred.
VI. S UMMARY AND C ONCLUSION
This paper has provided some insights into certain aspects
of an EM-augmented launch system for reducing the cost of
access to space but is by no means a complete answer. Further
and more detailed studies are required. The main conclusion is
probably that the cost of pulsed power is the critical factor for
this missionas it is for many other applications. It is perhaps
the scale of what is proposed here that shows just how critical
it is to find a way to reduce such costs.
What is needed is a revolution in the technology to create
large pulsed-power installations, if we are to see such novel
EM launch approaches enabled in the future. Perhaps the community needs to rethink how to economically store and deliver
such massive amounts of energy and poweralthough perhaps
not with the precise degrees of control that has traditionally
been used for other applications. If this can be achieved, the
dominance of large chemical-powered rockets, which otherwise
seems likely to continue well into the futurewith their intrinsic high costscan be overcome.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank R. Gray for his assistance
with Fig. 1.

1054

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 41, NO. 5, MAY 2013

R EFERENCES
[1] F. Sietzen, Jr., Spacelift Washington: International space transportation
association faltering; the myth of $10 000 per pound, Aerospace FYI Inc.,
Mar. 18, 2001.
[2] G. Lucas and C. Murphy, Appendix 4 of The military use of space:
A diagnostic assessment by Barry D. Watts, Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments 2001.
[3] R. J. Kaye, I. R. Shokair, R. W. Wavrik, J. F. Dempsey, W. E. Honey,
K. J. Shimp, and G. M. Douglas, Design and evaluation of coils for a 50
mm diameter induction coil launcher, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 31, no. 1,
pp. 478483, Jan. 1995.
[4] I. R. McNab, Progress on hypervelocity railgun research for launch to
space, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 381388, Jan. 2009.
[5] Brought to my attention by Dr. Stephan J. Bless, IAT.
[6] J. C. Mankins, The MaglifterAn advanced concept using electromagnetic propulsion in reducing the cost of space launch, presented at the
Joint Propulsion Conf. Exhib., Indianapolis, IN, USA, Jun. 2729, 1994,
Paper 94-2726.
[7] Figure reproduced from the study entitled: eLaunch Hypersonics
An advanced space launch system prepared by the NASA Multi-Center
EHLV Team 2009.
[8] M. Sonter and N. Mobiha, Papua New Guinea spaceports proposal,
presented at the Int. Space Development Conf., Chicago, IL, USA,
Jun. 2010.
[9] J. Powell and G. Maise, StarTram: The maglev launch path to very low
cost, very high volume launch to space, in Proc. 14th Symp. Electromagn.
Launch Technol., Jun. 2008, pp. 17.
[10] R. A. Braeunig, Rocket and space technology, Wikipedia site. [Online].
Available: www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm
[11] Wikipedia, accessed 6/19/2012. [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Sprint_missile
[12] O. Bozic, M. Schneider, and D. Porrmann, Conceptual design of Silver
EagleCombined electromagnetic and hybrid rocket system for suborbital investigations, presented at the 61st Int. Astronautical Congr.,
Prague, CZ, 2010, Paper IAC-10-C4.6.1.
[13] O. Bozic, T. Eggers, and S. Wiggen, Aerothermal and flight mechanic
considerations by development of small launchers for low orbit payloads
started from Lorentz rail accelerator, Progr. Propulsion Phys., vol. 2,
pp. 765784, Oct. 2011.
[14] D. Lancelle, O. Bozic, J. Martinez-Schram, and S. Linke, Measurement
of mechanical properties of solid fuels and advanced composite materials
related to short-time high acceleration generated by Lorentz rail accelerators, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 504510, Jan. 2011.
[15] D. Lancelle, O. Bozic, and H. Koke, Flight test results of investigation of
acceleration effects on a gun launched rocket engine, in Proc. 16th EML
Symp., Beijing, China, May 2012, pp. 16.
[16] T. Taylor, private communication, 2010.
[17] T. Taylor, W. P. Kistler, and B. Citron, Entrepreneurial Niche Markets:
Four Case Studies on the Development of Space Commerce. Isle of Man,
U.K.: IISC, Apr. 27, 2010.

[18] Wikipedia, accessed 6/19/2012. [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/K-1_%28rocket%29
[19] L. A. Kilgore, E. H. Hill, and C. Flick, A new three-million kVA short
circuit generator, IEEE Trans. Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-82, no. 67,
pp. 442446, Aug. 1963.
[20] I. A. Glebov, E. G. Kasharsky, and P. G. Rutberg, Synchronous Generators in Electrophysical Installations. Lexington, MA, USA: Lexington
Books D.C. Heath and Company, 1977.
[21] E. Dierks, I. R. McNab, J. A. Mallick, and S. Fish, Battery-inductor parametric system analysis for electromagnetic guns, IEEE Trans. Plasma
Sci., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 268274, Jan. 2011.
[22] B. Jackson and E. Yashton, 32 billion GBP high speed rail line gets the
go-ahead, The Sun newspaper (UK), Jan. 12 2012, 12.
[23] Wikipedia, accessed 6/19/2012. [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Rocket
[24] T. Hanada, M. Nagatomo, and Y. Naruo, Liquid hydrogen industry:
A key for space tourism, J. Space Technol. Sci., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 4551,
Autumn 1994.

Ian R. McNab (M98SM00F06) received the

B.Sc. degree in physics from the University of Leeds,
Leeds, U.K., in 1960 and the Ph.D. degree in applied
sciences from the University of Reading, Reading,
U.K., in 1974.
He is the Director (Acting) with the Institute
for Advanced Technology (IAT), The University of
Texas in Austin, Austin, TX, USA, which he joined
in 1995. His prior positions at IAT included Chief
Scientist and Director of the Electromagnetic Systems Division. From 1990 to 1994, he was a Vice
President with the Major Systems Division, Maxwell Laboratories, Inc., San
Diego, CA, USA. From 1984 to 1990, he was with Westinghouse, Sunnyvale,
CA, USA, where he was the Technical Director of electromagnetic launcher
and pulsed-power programs. From 1975 to 1983, he was with the Westinghouse Research Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Prior to 1975, he lived and
worked in the U.K., where he started his scientific career in 1960, undertaking
research on high-temperature cesium-seeded helium magnetoplasmadynamic
(MPD) generators at the International Research and Development Company,
Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K. He has published 140 scientific papers on research
and development topics in pulsed power, electric guns, rotating machines,
current collection, and plasma- and magneto-fluid dynamics. He is also the
author/coauthor of 17 U.S. and U.K. granted patents in electric gun, pulsed
power, and current collection technology.
Dr. McNab has been a Member of the Steering Committee of the International EM Launcher Symposia since 1982. He was a recipient of the Peter Mark
Medal in 1990 and the Lavrentyev Medal in 2003.