Concha M. Reid

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

William R. Bennett

ASRC Aerospace Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio

A Study on Advanced Lithium-Based Battery Cell 

Chemistries to Enhance Lunar Exploration Missions

NASA/TM—2010-216791

September 2010
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientifi c 

and technical fi ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientifi c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to help@

sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443–757–5803

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

 443–757–5802

• Write to:

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Concha M. Reid

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

William R. Bennett

ASRC Aerospace Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio

A Study on Advanced Lithium-Based Battery Cell 

Chemistries to Enhance Lunar Exploration Missions

NASA/TM—2010-216791

September 2010

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 

This report contains preliminary fi ndings, 

subject to revision as analysis proceeds.
NASA/TM—2010-216791 1

A Study on Advanced Lithium-Based Battery Cell 

Chemistries to Enhance Lunar Exploration Missions

Concha M. Reid

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

William R. Bennett

ASRC Aerospace Corporation

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Abstract

NASA’s Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) Energy Storage Project conducted 

an advanced lithium-based battery chemistry feasibility study to determine the best advanced chemistry to 

develop for the Altair Lunar Lander and the Extravehicular Activities (EVA) advanced lunar surface 

spacesuit. These customers require safe, reliable energy storage systems with extremely high specific 

energy as compared to today’s state-of-the-art (SOA) batteries. The specific energy goals for the 

development project are 220 watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg) delivered at the battery-level at 0 degrees 

Celsius (°C) at a C/10 discharge rate. Continuous discharge rates between C/5 and C/2, operation between 

0 and 30 °C, and 200 cycles are targeted. 

The team, consisting of members from the NASA Glenn Research Center, the NASA Johnson Space 

Center, and the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, surveyed the literature, compiled information on recent 

materials developments, and consulted with other battery experts in the community to identify advanced 

battery materials that might be capable of achieving the desired results with further development. A 

variety of electrode materials were considered, including layered metal oxides, spinel oxides, and olivinetype cathode materials, and lithium metal, lithium alloy, and silicon-based composite anode materials. 

Lithium-sulfur systems were also considered. Hypothetical cell constructs that combined compatible 

anode and cathode materials with suitable electrolytes, separators, current collectors, headers, and cell 

enclosures were modeled. 

The relative safety of systems containing the materials under consideration was assessed. Risks were 

also factored into the decision making process. The risks include uncertainties due to ease of scaling-up of 

large batches of raw materials, adaptability of the materials to processing using established or reasonable 

cost manufacturing techniques, manufacturability of the materials in dimensions required for integration 

into battery cells of practical capacities, Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), and the likelihood of 

achieving the desired performance by the customer need dates. The advanced cell chemistry options were 

evaluated with respect to multiple quantitative and qualitative attributes while considering their projected 

performance at the end of the available development timeframe. Following a rigorous ranking process, a 

chemistry that combines a lithiated nickel manganese cobalt oxide Li(LiNMC)O2 cathode with a siliconbased composite anode was selected as the technology that can potentially offer the best combination of 

safety, specific energy, energy density, and likelihood of success. 

Tasks over the next 3 years will focus on development of electrode materials, compatible electrolytes, 

and separator materials, and integration of promising components to assess their combined performance 

in working cells. Cells of the chosen chemistry will be developed to TRL 6 by 2014 and will then be 

transferred to the customers for infusion into their mission paths. 
NASA/TM—2010-216791 2

Introduction

NASA’s Constellation program is designing and building a new fleet of vehicles which will enable a 

permanent human presence on the Moon. Safe, lightweight, and compact energy storage technologies are 

required to enable or enhance these vehicles. In recent years, state-of-the-art (SOA) lithium-ion (Li-ion) 

cell technology has revolutionized the energy storage capabilities of space-rated batteries by enabling 

mission applications that require low temperature batteries, such as the 2003 Mars Exploration Rovers 

(MER), the Mars Phoenix Lander Scout Mission and the Mars Science Laboratory. Li-ion batteries have 

also significantly enhanced the capabilities of Earth-orbiting satellites and astronaut portable power 

applications, such as Personal Digital Assistants, by offering 2 to 3 times lower mass and volume energy 

storage systems as compared to traditional nickel-based spacecraft batteries. 

The next generation of space vehicles will require even lighter-weight energy storage systems. 

Additionally, unlike prior aerospace missions that have utilized Li-ion batteries, Constellation missions 

will require the combination of an energy storage system that will provide primary power for the vehicle 

and the increased level of safety befitting a human-rated mission. Existing SOA battery technology does 

not possess the capability to address all of the mission requirements. NASA’s ETDP Energy Storage 

Project is developing advanced Li-ion batteries for Altair Lunar Lander, EVA, and Mobility Systems for 

Lunar Surface Systems (LSS) with the goal to provide the best combination of safety and low mass in a 

compact system to address their mission requirements. 

Customer Requirements

The ETDP Energy Storage Project is developing two Li-ion cell chemistries to address customer 

requirements, the high energy (HE) cell and the ultra high energy (UHE) cell. Among the goals of both 

cell development activities are increased safety, specific energy, and energy density over SOA aerospace 

Li-ion cell technology. 

Mobility Systems for LSS include pressurized and unpressurized rovers and habitats. These vehicles 

have a wide range of requirements that are still being defined. Based on the preliminary requirements for 

Mobility Systems, a HE cell development effort was formulated to address the LSS customer 

requirements. The objective is to enable a battery system that can operationally deliver 150 Wh/kg at the 

beginning of life and can provide 2000 cycles to 80 percent of its original capacity. To accomplish these 

goals, cathode, electrolyte, and safety components are being developed and advanced separators are being 

assessed for HE cells. The HE cell goals represent increased safety over SOA Li-ion technology. 

Advanced cathode development for these cells is expected to enable over a 50 percent gain in cell-level 

specific energy over SOA.

The UHE cell development is targeted for the ascent stage of Altair, and to power the Portable Life 

Support System (PLSS) for the EVA Lunar spacesuit. For these missions, mass is highly critical, but only 

a limited number of cycles are required. EVA desired upwards of 300 Wh/kg of useable energy for the 

mission (i.e., delivered on a battery level), far beyond the capabilities of existing technology. Cathodelevel specific capacity enhancements alone were incapable of increasing the cell-level specific energy 

enough to meet the customers’ requirements, therefore anode materials with higher theoretical specific 

capacity than conventional graphitic anode materials had to be employed to enable the UHE cell. The low 

cycle life requirement allowed for the pursuit of different classes of anode materials that have 

demonstrated promising specific capacity performance results, but whose limited cycle life potential has 

inhibited much of the interest in these materials for commercial development. 

Attributes

Determination of the best potential chemistry to develop to enable an UHE system to address EVA 

and Altair’s requirements was the focus of this feasibility study. Ten attributes were chosen to rank each 

of the chemistries. These attributes represent the figures of merit that were determined to be the most 
NASA/TM—2010-216791 3

important to the final goal of choosing an advanced chemistry that has the best combination of safety, 

specific energy, energy density, and likelihood of success. The ten attributes are: cost to TRL 6, cycle life, 

energy density, manufacturability, rate capability up to C/5, rate capability up to C/2, safety, schedule, 

specific energy, and storage and calendar life. Several attributes were deemed to contribute to likelihood 

of success, including manufacturability, cycle life, cost to TRL 6, schedule, and rate capability. These 

attributes were each considered individually. The attributes and their definitions are given in Table 1.

TABLE 1.—ATTRIBUTES FOR RANKING CHEMISTRIES AND THEIR DEFINITIONS

Attribute Definitions

Cost to TRL 6 The cost to develop the technology to TRL 6, including costs attributed to costly manufacturing 

processes or processes that cannot be automated

Cycle life Projected cycle life of the technology

Energy density Projected energy density of the technology (calculated under a standard set of conditions)

Manufacturability The projected level of ease or difficulty associated with working with materials, scaling up 

batches of materials, and manufacturing cells of practical capacity made from these components, 

and the projected adaptability of materials to large scale processing

Rate capability up to C/5 Likelihood that the technology can meet a C/5 continuous discharge rate

Rate capability up to C/2 Likelihood that the technology can meet a C/2 continuous discharge rate

Safety The likelihood that a cell made from these components can be made to be safe. Included safety 

under normal operation and abuse conditions

Schedule Likelihood that TRL 6 cells can be delivered by March 2104

Specific energy Projected specific energy of the technology (calculated under a standard set of conditions)

Storage and calendar life Projected storage + calendar life, where calendar life includes the operating time plus periods at 

open circuit between active charging and discharging 

Chemistry Options

The chemistries that were considered were selected as a result of extensive literature surveys, 

compilation of information on recent materials developments, and consultations with other battery experts 

in the community to identify advanced battery materials that might be capable of achieving the desired 

results with further development. A variety of electrode materials were considered, including layered 

metal oxides, spinel oxides and olivine-type cathode materials, and Li metal, Li alloy and silicon (Si)-

based composite anode materials. Li-sulfur (Li/S) systems were also considered. 

Of the numerous options that were considered, options for detailed consideration were narrowed 

down to 32 choices. Hypothetical cell constructs that combined compatible anode and cathode materials 

with suitable electrolytes, separators, current collectors, headers, and cell enclosures were modeled using 

a battery model developed under the ETDP Energy Storage Project. The outputs of the model were 

projections on cell and battery-level specific energy and energy density for the different options under 

consideration. These results represent projected performance after 3 years of focused component 

development.

A 35 Ah cell was assumed to approximate specific energy and energy density for a cell of practical 

capacity for the customers and to form a common basis of comparison of chemistries. Two different cell 

geometries were considered, prismatic (rectangular) and cylindrical cells. The results for the 32 

chemistries are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The 300 mAh/g ETDP cases are chemistries that use the 

projected performance of the Li(LiNMC)O2 cathode material currently being developed under the ETDP 

project, where LiNMC is LixNiyMnzCo1-x-y-z. 300 mAh/g is the projected room temperature specific 

capacity of the materials. 

As seen from the differences in the specific energy and energy density results between the prismatic 

and cylindrical cell designs, cell designs can have a significant effect on mass and volume. Four cell 

chemistries were chosen to illustrate these effects. Specific energies for a 35 Ah prismatic cell in a 

stainless steel can with a 20-mil wall thickness, a 35 Ah cylindrical cell in an aluminum can with a 60-mil 

wall thickness, a 35 Ah prismatic cell in a plastic case with a 20-mil wall thickness and an 18650-size cell 
NASA/TM—2010-216791 4

were calculated. An 18650 cell is a cylindrical cell form factor with an 18 mm diameter and a 65 mm 

height and is commonly used for commercial cells.

As seen in Figure 3, the specific energy of a cell chemistry can increase by as much as 100 Wh/kg 

when only the cell packaging is considered. Cell packaging must be combined with appropriate battery 

packaging to truly see the gains achieved by lightweight cell construction materials. In the case of plastic 

prismatic cells for instance, many of the cell-level specific energy gains may be lost in packaging a flightquality battery composed of cells using these packaging materials. Appropriate cell designs, including 

packaging that can enable the lightest weight flight battery system, will be determined as the development 

activity progresses. 

Since it was not practical to perform a detailed weighting analysis on each of these chemistries, several 

options were eliminated on the basis that their projected specific energy did not come close to achieving the 

customers’ goals. A threshold was drawn at 180 Wh/kg. Chemistries that clearly did not come close to the 

threshold when packaged in either prismatic or cylindrical metal cases were eliminated. High voltage 

cathode/anode combinations, lithium titanate chemistries, and chemistries that used the SOA meso-carbon 

microbead (MCMB) anode did not meet the minimum threshold specific energy. Plastic prismatic case 

packaging was eliminated since the gains here were not related to electrochemical advancements and each 

of the chemistries that were modeled with plastic were considered elsewhere with other packaging. Of the 

remaining classes of materials, seven specific chemistries were chosen for the detailed weighting analysis. 

These options and their descriptions are listed in Table 2. Specific energy and energy density predictions for 

these seven options are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 and their percent gain in specific energy over SOA 

Li-ion cells is shown in Figure 6.

TABLE 2.—FINAL CHEMISTRY OPTIONS

Anode Cathode Description

Si-Composite Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) Si-based composite anode with 1000 mAh/g specific capacity and 14% 

irreversible capacity. Lithiated nickel manganese cobalt oxide layered cathode 

with 300 mAh/g specific capacity and 4 mil electrode thickness. Cathode 

currently under development for the ETDP Energy Storage project. LiNMC is 

LixNiyMnzCo1-x-y-z.

Si-Composite Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 Si-based composite anode with 1000 mAh/g specific capacity and 14% 

irreversible capacity. Nickel manganese cobalt oxide cathode (commercial 

“one third, one third, one third” formulation).

Li-metal Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 Li-metal anode. Nickel manganese cobalt oxide cathode (commercial “one 

third, one third, one third” formulation).

Li-metal Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) Li-metal anode. Lithiated nickel manganese cobalt oxide layered cathode with 

300 mAh/g specific capacity and 4 mil thick electrode. Cathode currently 

under development for the ETDP Energy Storage project. LiNMC is 

LixNiyMnzCo1-x-y-z.

Li-metal LiNiMn2O4 Li-metal anode. LiNiMn2O4 cathode, spinel structure.

Li-metal LiCoPO4 Li-metal anode. LiCoPO4, olivine structure.

Li-metal (Li2)S Li-metal anode. Sulfur cathode with 1100 mAh/g specific capacity and 25% 

diluent.

Ranking Process

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was chosen as the decision making tool for the feasibility 

study (Ref. 1). This process allowed the team to generate weightings in a stepwise fashion for each 

attribute with respect to every other attribute and for each chemistry with respect to each attribute. The 

intermediate results were then combined to generate the overall weightings for the attributes and for the 

chemistries. The chemistry which resulted in the highest weight is the preferred chemistry. The results of 

the ranking process are discussed in the following sections. 
NASA/TM—2010-216791 5

Weighting of Attributes With Respect to Choosing an Advanced Chemistry

The process of weighing each attribute with respect to its importance in choosing an advanced 

chemistry resulted in the weightings shown in Table 3. Safety rose as the top priority with a final weight 

of 17.9. This weighting is consistent with the customers’ slight preference for safety over performance. 

Rate capability to C/5 and specific energy were weighted closely together as the second and third 

priorities. A post study sensitivity analysis showed that the final study results were unaffected by 

switching around the weights of the top three attributes. These results reflect the customers’ requirement 

for extremely light batteries that can meet the mission requirements. Based on the customers’ present load 

profiles, low to moderate discharge rates are required. 

TABLE 3.—ATTRIBUTE WEIGHTINGS WITH RESPECT

TO CHOOSING AN ADVANCED CHEMISTRY

Attribute Final weight

Safety 17.9

Rate capability up to C/5 15.6

Specific energy 15.0

Storage and calendar life 12.2

Energy density 10.2

Manufacturability 8.3

Schedule 8.0

Cost to TRL 6 6.5

Cycle life 3.8

Rate capability up to C/2 2.5

Rate capability up to C/2 was ranked as the least important attribute since there is no existing specific 

requirement for a C/2 discharge rate. There is, however, an expectation that load profiles will grow as 

requirements change until the final design is set. An additional driver for the consideration of an increased 

discharge rate capability is the highly critical nature of the mass requirement for the EVA customer. 

Although the EVA customer overwhelmingly prefers a battery that can perform for the entire duration 

of an 8-hr sortie, in the event that the battery mass is too prohibitive for an astronaut to practically carry, 

the customer may be willing to sacrifice battery discharge time in order to obtain a lighter battery. A 

battery that operates for 4 hr will save approximately half the mass of an 8-hr battery and can be swapped 

with a spare midway through the sortie to still allow for an 8-hr sortie. The reduction in energy in the 

battery will result in an increased discharge rate requirement since the same amount of power will be 

needed to meet the mission requirements as in the 8-hr case, therefore a maximum discharge rate of C/5 

will no longer be adequate to meet the load profile. 

Due to these considerations, a conservative estimate of C/2 was deemed as the maximum possible 

discharge rate, but its importance in choosing an advanced chemistry was not judged to be very 

significant. The next sections will discuss the weightings of each of the seven chemistries with respect to 

each of the ten attributes.

Weighting of Chemistry Options with Respect to Attributes

Safety

The integration of all of the components that make up a cell contribute to its overall safety. For this 

study, the individual contributions of the anode and cathode and their potential impact on the safety of 

each chemistry were considered. While safer electrolytes and separators can increase the overall safety of 

a cell, for simplicity, the impacts due to these components were assumed to be similar for all chemistries 

and did not factor into the safety rankings. The resultant weightings solely reflect the ranking of the 

perceived safety of the anode/cathode combinations for each chemistry. Cell-level safety was considered 

for normal operation and under abuse conditions.
NASA/TM—2010-216791 6

For the seven chemistries, there were two choices of anodes: Li-metal and Si-based composite. There 

are serious safety concerns associated with a rechargeable Li-metal chemistry (Refs. 2 and 3). As a cell 

that contains a Li-metal anode cycles, it becomes prone to Li dendrite growth with each additional cycle 

as Li is deposited unevenly on the electrode surface. The dendrites can puncture the separator and cause 

internal shorting (Ref. 4). Coating the surface of Li-metal anodes could inhibit dendrite growth (Ref. 5), 

however, the development of appropriate coatings in the available timeframe will pose a significant 

technical challenge. Without the appropriate coatings, Li-metal rechargeable chemistries cannot meet an 

acceptable level of safety. For these reasons, all Li-metal chemistries received weightings that were 

significantly lower in safety than Si-based composite anode chemistries. 

The safety of the cathode materials was determined based on their inherent thermal stability and 

voltage capability. The Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 and Li(LiNMC)O2 ETDP cathode materials are

characterized by higher thermal stability than conventional Li-ion cathodes, which is attributed to their 

Mn content (Refs. 6 to 8). The Li(LiNMC)O2 ETDP cathode materials are capable of operating at high 

voltages (above 4.5 V) as compared to conventional Li-ion cathodes (~4.2 V). When packaged in the 

same physically-sized cells, a cell containing the Li(LiNMC)O2 ETDP cathode would have a higher 

energy content than a cell containing a conventional cathode, and would thus pose a greater safety 

concern under abuse conditions than a lower energy cell. When paired with the safer anode material, the 

higher voltage operation of the Li(LiNMC)O2 ETDP cathode was deemed to outweigh its thermal 

stability properties as a higher safety risk, which resulted in the Si-based composite/

Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 cathode chemistry receiving the highest weight of 38.9 for Safety. When paired 

with a more volatile Li-metal anode, however, the cathode became less important in the determination of 

safety, resulting in similar weights for all of the Li-metal chemistries. The results of the Safety rankings 

are shown in Table 4. Figure 7 effectively illustrates the impact the dominance of the Si-based composite 

anodes on the safety of the chemistry.

TABLE 4.—WEIGHTING OF CHEMISTRY OPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO SAFETY

Anode Cathode Weight

Si-Composite Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 28.8

Si-Composite Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 38.9

Li-metal Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 6.3

Li-metal Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 8.4

Li-metal LiNiMn2O4 5.7

Li-metal LiCoPO4 5.7

Li-metal (Li2)S 6.1

Rate Capability up to C/5

When considering rate capability to C/5, it was again necessary to compare the performance of individual 

electrodes that impact rate in addition to the anode/cathode couples. The Li(LiNMC)O2 ETDP cathode 

currently has known rate limitations as compared to Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 cathode, so 

Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 cathode ranked higher than the Li(LiNMC)O2 cathode when paired with either anode. 

There is not much information available in the literature regarding the rate capability of Si-based 

composite anode materials, however, they are assumed to exhibit poorer rate capability than Li-metal 

anodes. Chemistries containing Si-based composite anodes are generally weighted lower than those 

containing Li-metal anodes. 

The sole exception is the LiCoPO4 cathode, which has only been demonstrated to deliver a fraction of 

its theoretical capacity of 167 mAh/g (Refs. 9 to 12) at very low to modest discharge rates and severe 

capacity fading in systems with conventional Li-ion organic electrolytes containing LiPF6 salts. Specific 

capacities reported in the literature range from 65 to 105 mAh/g at rates between C/50 and C/10 when the 

cathode is cycled between ~5.3 to 5.0 V to ~3.5 to 3.0 V at room temperature (Refs. 9 to 11, and 13). 

Although it is theorized that the likely culprit for the poor performance and high fade rate in the LiCoPO4

cathode is the instability of the electrolyte (oxidation and decomposition) during high voltage operation 
NASA/TM—2010-216791 7

and subsequent side reactions that inhibit lithium insertion and extraction (Refs. 9, 10, 13, and 14), 

operation at lower voltages would yield even lower specific capacities. Poor electronic conductivity of the 

active olivine material has also been reported (Refs. 9 and 13). The weightings of the chemistry options 

with respect to Rate Capability to C/5 are shown in Table 5.

Specific Energy

Quantitative specific energy projections from models were used to generate the pairwise comparisons 

for each chemistry with respect to every other chemistry. The specific energy was calculated using the 

projected specific capacity and voltage performance of each electrode after 3 years of focused 

development and the resultant performance of each of the pairs. The projected values for Specific Energy 

for each chemistry, when packaged in prismatic steel cases, and their weightings are given in Table 6. 

TABLE 5.—WEIGHTING OF CHEMISTRY OPTIONS 

WITH RESPECT TO RATE CAPABILITY TO C/5

Anode Cathode Weight

Si-Composite Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 6.2

Si-Composite Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 10.3

Li-metal Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 16.5

Li-metal Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 10.6

Li-metal LiNiMn2O4 31.3

Li-metal LiCoPO4 2.6

Li-metal (Li2)S 22.6

TABLE 6.—WEIGHTING OF CHEMISTRY OPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFIC ENERGY

Anode Cathode Projected specific energy for 

a prismatic cell 

(Wh/kg)

Weight

Si-Composite Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 255 17.0

Si-Composite Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 163 10.9

Li-metal Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 199 13.3

Li-metal Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 243 16.2

Li-metal LiNiMn2O4 180 12.0

Li-metal LiCoPO4 201 13.4

Li-metal (Li2)S 259 17.3

Storage and Calendar Life

The weightings for Storage and Calendar Life and their projected values are shown in Table 7. The 

clustering of the weights for this attribute is indicative of the large amount of uncertainty regarding the 

storage and calendar life of chemistries that will incorporate these advanced materials. Chemistries that 

have a 3-year life were projected to achieve this at a minimum—there were no known issues that could 

impact storage and calendar life. 

Cells with Li-metal anodes were determined by the team to have a shorter storage and calendar life 

potential than cells with Si-based composite anodes. Li-metal rechargeable cells are built in a charged 

state. A continuous reaction between Li-metal in the charged state and the electrolyte and the ensuing 

impedance growth impacts their storage and calendar life. Alternate non-organic electrolytes, such as 

ionic liquids, have not been shown to alleviate this effect and may not be stable in a Li-metal rechargeable 

system. Li/S has a high self-discharge rate, and it is unknown if the lost capacity is reversible, so it is 

projected to have only about a 2-year life. 
NASA/TM—2010-216791 8

TABLE 7.—WEIGHTING OF CHEMISTRY OPTIONS 

WITH RESPECT TO STORAGE AND CALENDAR LIFE

Anode Cathode Projected storage and 

calendar life 

(yr)

Weight

Si-Composite Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) >3 16.7

Si-Composite Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 >3 16.7

Li-metal Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 ~2.5 13.9

Li-metal Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) ~2.5 13.9

Li-metal LiNiMn2O4 ~2.5 13.9

Li-metal LiCoPO4 ~2.5 13.9

Li-metal (Li2)S ~2 11.1

Energy Density

Energy density projections were made in a similar fashion to the specific energy projections discussed 

above. The projected values for Energy Density for each chemistry, when packaged in prismatic steel 

cases, and their weightings are given in Table 8. Although Li/S was weighted the highest for Specific 

Energy, it received the lowest weight for Energy Density. 

TABLE 8.—WEIGHTING OF CHEMISTRY OPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO ENERGY DENSITY

Anode Cathode Projected energy density for a 

prismatic cell 

(Wh/L)

Weight

Si-Composite Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 646 19.5

Si-Composite Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 436 13.2

Li-metal Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 450 13.6

Li-metal Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 538 16.3

Li-metal LiNiMn2O4 408 12.3

Li-metal LiCoPO4 428 13.0

Li-metal (Li2)S 403 12.2

Manufacturability

The team defined Manufacturability as the projected level of ease or difficulty associated with working 

with materials, scaling up batches of materials, manufacturing cells of practical capacity made from the 

components, and the projected adaptability of materials to large scale processing. All of the cathodes 

materials were determined to be similar enough to heritage Li-ion cathode materials to require similar 

manufacturing and cell processing techniques that would be compatible with or adaptable to currently 

existing manufacturing processes and equipment, with the exception of the sulfur cathode. Most of the Limetal chemistries were determined to be highly manufacturable, based on the established knowledge base in 

manufacturing Li primary (nonrechargeable) cells. Li/S was again the exception due to the unknowns 

associated with manufacturing large capacity sulfur cathodes and incorporating them into a cell. 

It was determined that Si-based composite anodes would be more difficult to manufacture than Limetal anodes. There are currently no known US manufacturers of Si-based composite anodes to make up 

a domestic knowledge base for large scale processing of these materials. Chemical vapor deposition is a 

common technique used in laboratories to deposit (or plate) Si on a substrate. It is unknown if this process 

is scalable to manufacture large quantities and sizes of anode materials. Weights for Manufacturability are 

shown in Table 9.
NASA/TM—2010-216791 9

TABLE 9.—WEIGHTING OF CHEMISTRY OPTIONS

WITH RESPECT TO MANUFACTURABILITY

Anode Cathode Weight

Si-Composite Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 7.8

Si-Composite Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 7.8

Li-metal Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 20.5

Li-metal Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 20.5

Li-metal LiNiMn2O4 20.5

Li-metal LiCoPO4 20.5

Li-metal (Li2)S 2.5

Schedule

Chemistries with the Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 cathode fared well for schedule since it is a 

commercially available material that would only require minor tweaks to optimize it for the specific 

chemistry. Although the anode paired with the Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 cathode requires development, 

utilizing a cathode with proven performance greatly reduces schedule risks.

The development of a Si-based composite anode has a lower schedule risk than developing a stable 

Li-metal rechargeable chemistry. The development of compatible electrolytes and effective coatings are 

critical to improve the safety of chemistries containing a Li-metal anode and may pose significant 

schedule issues. Therefore, the Si-composite/Li(LiNMC)O2 cathode weighting is higher than the 

Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 cathode paired with a Li-metal anode. Results of the weighting of chemistries 

with respect to Schedule are shown in Table 10.

TABLE 10.—WEIGHTING OF CHEMISTRY OPTIONS

WITH RESPECT TO SCHEDULE

Anode Cathode Weight

Si-Composite Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 16.8

Si-Composite Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 38.0

Li-metal Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 15.8

Li-metal Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 10.8

Li-metal LiNiMn2O4 8.6

Li-metal LiCoPO4 4.6

Li-metal (Li2)S 5.4

Cost to TRL 6

The Cost to TRL 6 attribute considered the cost to develop the technology to TRL 6, including costs 

attributed to costly manufacturing processes or processes that cannot be automated. In the absence of true 

costs, this factor was judged qualitatively by performing pairwise comparisons of the relative cost to 

develop each chemistry with respect to every other chemistry. The results are shown in Table 11. 

TABLE 11.—WEIGHTING OF CHEMISTRY OPTIONS

WITH RESPECT TO COST TO TRL 6

Anode Cathode Weight

Si-Composite Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 24.1

Si-Composite Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 33.3

Li-metal Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 14.0

Li-metal Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 7.6

Li-metal LiNiMn2O4 10.7

Li-metal LiCoPO4 3.5

Li-metal (Li2)S 6.8
NASA/TM—2010-216791 10

Cycle Life 

The cycle life of each chemistry after 3 years of development was projected. Cycle life at C/5 to 100 

percent DOD and to 80 percent of initial capacity was used as a benchmark to qualify cycle life. Some 

general observations regarding potential cycle life of the chemistries were noted. Si-based composite 

chemistries will be anode limited and were projected to achieve approximately 200 cycles under the given 

conditions. With the exception of the spinel and olivine compositions and Li/S, the Li-metal chemistries 

would also be anode limited to achieve the maximum cycles Li-metal is capable of delivering. This was 

approximated at 300 cycles under the conditions listed above. For the other Li-metal chemistries, the 

cycle life of the cathode was the determining factor. Operation at high voltages is expected to adversely 

impact the cycle life of the spinel and olivine cathodes (Ref. 15). The projected cycle lives of the 

chemistries and their weights are shown in Table 12.

TABLE 12.—WEIGHTING OF CHEMISTRY OPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO CYCLE LIFE

Anode Cathode Projected cycle life Weight

Si-Composite Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 200 14.3

Si-Composite Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 200 14.3

Li-metal Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 300 21.4

Li-metal Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 300 21.4

Li-metal LiNiMn2O4 200 14.3

Li-metal LiCoPO4 100 7.1

Li-metal (Li2)S 100 7.1

Rate Capability to C/2

The logic to project rate capability at C/2 paralleled the logic for C/5 performance. However, since 

the LiNiMn2O4 spinel oxide cathode can deliver superior performance at higher rates, it was weighted 

more heavily at C/2. The performance of Li/S degrades much more rapidly at C/2, so the 

Li/Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 chemistry is weighted higher here. The weightings of the chemistry options 

with respect to Rate Capability to C/2 are shown in Table 13.

TABLE 13.—WEIGHTING OF CHEMISTRY OPTIONS 

WITH RESPECT TO RATE CAPABILITY TO C/2

Anode Cathode Weight

Si-Composite Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 7.0

Si-Composite Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 8.8

Li-metal Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 17.4

Li-metal Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 11.1

Li-metal LiNiMn2O4 39.3

Li-metal LiCoPO4 2.2

Li-metal (Li2)S 14.2

Results

An analysis of the results of the chemistry rankings with respect to each attribute reveals that Si-based 

composite chemistries were highly favored with respect to four of the ten attributes: Safety, Storage and 

Calendar Life, Schedule, and Cost to TRL 6. Li-metal chemistries tended to be weighted highest with 

respect to three of the ten attributes: Rate Capability to C/5, Manufacturability, and Rate Capability to 

C/2. Both anode types received a range of weightings in the categories of Specific Energy, Energy 

Density, and Cycle Life, depending upon the cathode they were paired with. 

Table 14 shows the final overall weightings of all the seven chemistries. The dominance of the 

weightings of the Si-based composite chemistries with respect to Safety, the most important attribute (as 

shown in Table 3), tilted the final weightings in favor of the Si-based composite chemistries. The Si-based 
NASA/TM—2010-216791 11

composite/Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 chemistry received the highest overall ranking. Since 

Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 is a commercial cathode, the chemistry was a clear preference in categories such as 

Schedule and Cost to TRL 6. This cathode also contributed to the chemistry’s higher weightings over the Sibased composite/Li(LiNMC)O2 chemistry for factors such as Safety and Rate Capability to C/5, the two 

most important attributes, in addition to Energy Density and Rate Capability to C/2. The sole attribute in 

which the Si-based composite/Li(LiNMC)O2 chemistry outperformed the Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2

counterpart is Specific Energy. Specific Energy is the third most important attribute, and is virtually tied 

with the second most important attribute. 

TABLE 14.—FINAL WEIGHTING OF CHEMISTRY OPTIONS

Anode Cathode Final weight

Si-Composite Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 20.2

Si-Composite Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 17.0

Li-metal LiNiMn2O4 15.3

Li-metal Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 13.9

Li-metal Li(LiNMC)O2 (ETDP) 13.1

Li-metal (Li2)S 11.5

Li-metal LiCoPO4 9.1

Given the results of the rigorous ranking process, the team determined the best course of action to 

pursue to develop the chemistry that could deliver the best combination of safety and performance in the 

available timeframe. Given that the Li(LiNMC)O2 ETDP cathode is already under development in the 

project and the Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 cathode is a commercial material that would only need minor 

tweaking to optimize its performance in conjunction with other cell components, a decision was made to 

continue development of the Li(LiNMC)O2 ETDP cathode to pursue higher potential gains in specific 

energy, and to hold the Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2 chemistry in reserve as a back-up option. 

Key Performance Parameters

A set of Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) were established for the HE and UHE cells through a 

combination of customer requirements definition and results of the feasibility study, considering the 

chemistry chosen and expert opinions on what technology advancements could reasonably deliver with the 

available resources on the required schedule. The UHE cell development will enable a battery system that 

can operationally deliver 220 Wh/kg at the beginning of life and can provide 200 cycles to 80 percent of its 

original capacity. The UHE cell development adds advanced anodes to the existing component development 

portfolio for HE cells to enable much higher cell-level specific energy, on the order of a 120 percent 

increase over SOA. 

The KPP goals are shown in Table 15. The first column contains customer needs, which have been 

tempered based on the capability of the technology that was chosen to address the full range of 

requirements. SOA values are given in the third column of Table 15. Specific energy and energy density 

performance are interrelated with rate capability and other operating conditions. A baseline set of conditions 

was specified at which specific energy and energy density performance of the SOA cells and battery would 

be stated in order to compare advanced developments to existing technology. These conditions are operation 

at C/10 and 0 °C to 100 percent depth-of-discharge (DOD), defined as a discharge to 3.0 V. 

SOA aerospace Li-ion cell technology was determined to be the cells that make up the 2003 MER rover 

batteries. Since there is no direct comparison for SOA batteries operating in a Lunar environment, it was 

determined that the MER rover batteries represent a closer case study than Li-ion cells operating on an 

Earth-orbiting satellite. These batteries are at TRL 9 since they have achieved operation under actual 

mission conditions, they are operating under a similar thermal environment as the Lunar batteries are 

expected to operate under (with thermal controls) and they will likely operate under similar cyclical profiles, 

i.e., providing primary power for several hours on a single discharge for missions lifetimes of several 

months. 
NASA/TM—2010-216791 12

TABLE 15.—KEY PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS

Customer need Performance 

parameter

SOA Current value Threshold value Goal

Safe, reliable 

operation No fire or flame 

Instrumentation/controllers 

used to prevent unsafe 

conditions. There is no 

nonflammable electrolyte in 

SOA 

Preliminary results indicate a 

moderate reduction in the 

performance with flame 

retardants and nonflammable 

electrolytes 

Benign cell venting without 

fire or flame and reduce the 

likelihood and severity of a 

fire in the event o f a thermal 

runaway 

Tolerant to electrical and 

thermal abuse such as overtemperature, overcharge, 

reversal, and external short 

circuit with no fire or flame 

Specific energy 

Lander: 

150 to 210 Wh/kg 

10 cycles 

Rover: 

150 to 200 Wh/kg 

EVA: 

180 to 230 Wh/kg 

100 cycles 

Battery-level

specific energy 

90 Wh/kg at C/10 and 30 °C 

83 Wh/kg at C/10 and 0 °C 

(MER rovers) 

130 Wh/kg at C/10 and 30 °C 

120 Wh/kg at C/10 and 0 °C 

135 Wh/kg at C/10 and 0 °C 

HE 

150 Wh/kg at C/10 and 0 °C 

UHE 

150 Wh/kg at C/10 and 0 °C 

HE

220 Wh/kg at C/10 and 0 °C 

UHE

Cell-level 

specific energy 

130 Wh/kg at C/10 and 30 °C 

118 Wh/kg at C/10 and 0 °C 150 Wh/kg at C/10 and 0 °C 

165 Wh/kg at C/10 and 0 °C 

HE 

180 Wh/kg at C/10 and 0 °C 

UHE

180 Wh/kg at C/10 and 0 °C 

HE

260 Wh/kg at C/10 and 0 °C 

UHE

Cathode-level

specific capacity 

Li(Li,NiMn)O2

140 to 150 mAh/g typical 

Li(Li0.17Ni0.25Mn0.58)O2: 

240 mAh/g at C/10 and 25 °C

Li(Li0.2Ni0.13Mn0.54Co0.13)O2:

250 mAh/g at C/10 and 25 °C

200 mAh/g at C/10 and 0 °C 

260 mAh/g at C/10 and 0 °C 280 m Ah/g at C/10 and 0 °C 

Anode-level 

specific capacity 320 mAh/g (MCMB) 320 mAh/g (MCMB) 

450 mAh/g Si composite 

600 mAh/g at C/10 and 0 °C 

(with Si composite) 

1000 m Ah/g at C/10 0 °C 

(with Si composite) 

Energy density 

Lander: 

311 Wh/L

Rover: 

TBD 

EVA: 

400 to 700 Wh/L

Battery-level 

energy density 250 Wh/L N/A 

270 Wh/L 

HE

360 Wh/L

UHE

320 Wh/L

HE

420 Wh/L

UHE

Cell-level 

energy density 320 Wh/L N/A 

385 Wh/L

HE 

460 Wh/L

UHE

390 Wh/L

HE 

530 Wh/L

UHE

Operating 

environment 

0 to 30 °C, 

vacuum 

Operating 

temperature –20 to 40 °C –50 to 40 °C 0 to 30 °C 0 to 30 °C

Assumes prismatic cell packaging for threshold values. Goal values include lightweight battery packaging. Battery values are assumed at 100 percent DOD, 

discharged at C/10 to 3.0 V/cell, and at 0 °C operating conditions.

The Current Value column in Table 15 gives values that correspond to the capability of the advanced 

technology that has been developed to date under the ETDP project (cathodes and electrolytes) or 

literature values (anodes). Cell and battery-level values in this column were projected from the 

performance capability of the advanced components. The Threshold values are the minimum acceptable 

performance criteria for success. The Goal values are those that represent full success in meeting the 

project goals.

It is worthwhile to note that the UHE cell development is a higher risk approach than the HE cells, 

due to the combination of potential safety concerns with the use of pure Li metal anodes and Li-based 

anodes, low TRL for the anode materials, and the departure from traditional lithium-ion anode materials 

which will demand different types of processing and manufacturing approaches. Although the HE cell 

development is primarily targeted for Mobility Systems, due to the high risk nature of the UHE cell 

development, the HE cell will also serve as a backup technology for Altair and EVA.

Conclusions

The feasibility study resulted in the determination that Si-based composite/Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2

and Si-based composite/Li(LiNMC)O2 chemistries can provide the best combination of safety, specific 

energy, energy density, and likelihood of success in the available timeframe. Given these results, the 

ETDP Energy Storage Project made a decision to continue to develop the ETDP cathode, the 

Li(LiNMC)O2, and to reserve the option to incorporate Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2, optimized for the specific 
NASA/TM—2010-216791 13

chemistry, as a back-up cathode. This strategy reduces the risk associated with cathode development at 

virtually no cost and provides the opportunity for the project to continue to develop the cathode with the 

potential to deliver much higher specific energy. 

The project will also begin to aggressively develop Si-based composite anode materials. A safe, high 

specific capacity anode is critical to achieving the specific energy goals for the project. Si-based 

composite materials require development to address volume expansion to improve their mechanical and 

cycling stability and to reduce the first cycle irreversible capacity loss. These challenges were deemed to 

be addressable within the timeframe available.

Compatible electrolytes, separators, and safety components will also be developed. Electrolytes that 

are stable at high voltages, non-flammable electrolytes, and those that incorporate flame-retardant 

additives will be developed to improve the voltage stability and the safety of the chemistry. Shut-down 

separators, safer separators and safety components that are either incorporated into the electrochemical 

components of the cell or consist of functional, internal cell components, will also be developed and 

investigated.

In general, Li-metal chemistry options suffered from significant safety issues that need to be resolved. 

Appropriate electrolytes and coatings would have to be developed to overcome these issues. The 

significant challenges to achieving these goals led to a lack of confidence that the materials would be 

mature enough within the available timeframe. Li/S offers impressive specific energy performance and 

may be considered for development for far term missions or for future upgrades to current technology 

solutions.

NASA/TM—2010-216791 15

Appendix A.—Abbreviations

°C degrees Celsius

Ah Ampere hours

Co cobalt

DOD depth of discharge

ETDP Exploration Technology Development Program

EVA extravehicular activities

HE high energy

hr hour(s)

KPP Key Performance Parameter

Li lithium

Li-ion lithium-ion

LiNMC lithium nickel manganese cobalt

Li/S lithium sulfur

LSS Lunar Surface Systems

LTO lithium titanate

mAh/g milliampere hours per gram

MCMB mesocarbon microbeads

MER Mars Exploration Rover

Mn manganese

Ni nickel

O oxygen

P phosphate

S sulfur

Si-comp silicon composite

SOA state of the art

TRL Technology Readiness Level

UHE ultra high energy

V Volts

Wh/kg Watt-hours per kilogram
NASA/TM—2010-216791 16

References

1. Thomas L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, 

2nd ed. Pittsburgh, PA, RWS Publications, 1990.

2. Fritz R. Kalhammer, “Polymer electrolytes and the electric vehicle,” Solid State Ionics, Vol. 135, 

pp. 313–323, 2000.

3. Tsutomu Ohzuku and Ralph J. Brodd, “An overview of positive-electrode materials for advanced 

lithium-ion batteries,” Journal of Power Sources, Vol. 174, No. 2, pp. 449–456, 2007.

4. A.P. Lewandowski, A.F. Hollenkamp, S.W. Donne, and A.S. Best, “Cycling and rate performance of 

Li-LiFePO4 cells in mixed FSI-TFSI room temperature ionic liquids,” Journal of Power sources, 

Vol. 195, No. 7, pp. 2029–2035, 2010.

5. Arenst Andreas Arie, Oleg M. Vovk, Jin O. Song, Byung Won Cho, and Joong Kee Lee, “Carbon 

film covering originated from fullerene C60 on the surface of lithium metal anode for lithium 

secondary batteries,” Journal of Electroceramics, Vol. 23, No. 2–4, pp. 248–253, October 2009.

6. Zhonghua Lu, D.D. MacNeil, and J.R. Dahn, “Layered Li[NixCo1-2xMnx]O2 cathode materials for 

Lithium-Ion Batteries,” Electrochemical and Solid State Letters, Vol. 4, No. 12, pp. A200–A203, 

2001.

7. Zhonghua Lu, D.D. MacNeil, and J.R. Dahn, “Layered cathode materials Li[NixLi(1/3-2x/3)Mn(2/3-

x/3)]O2 for Lithium-Ion Batteries,” Electrochemical and Solid State Letters, Vol. 4, No. 11, 

pp. A191–A194, 2001.

8. D.D., Lu, Zhonghua, Chen, Zhaohui, Dahn, J.R. MacNeil, “A comparison of the electrode/electrolyte 

reaction at elevated temperatures for various Li-ion battery cathodes,” Journal of Power Sources, 

Vol. 108, pp. 8–14, 2002.

9. K. Amine, H. Yasuda, and M. Yamachi, “Olivine LiCoPO4 as 4.8 V Electrode Material for Lithium 

Batteries,” Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 178–179, 2000.

10. J.M. Lloris, C. Perez Vicente, and J.L. Tirado, “Improvement of the Electrochemical Performance of 

LiCoPO4 5 V Material Using a Novel Synthesis Procedure,” Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, 

Vol. 5, No. 10, pp. A234–A237, 2002.

11. Shigeto Okada et al., “Cathode Properties of Phospho-olivine LiMPO4 for Lithium Secondary 

Batteries,” Journal of Power Sources, Vol. 97–98, pp. 430–432, 2001.

12. J.M. Osorio-Guillen, B. Holm, R. Ahuja, and B. Johansson, “A Theoretical Study of Olivine LiMPO4 

Cathodes,” Solid State Ionics, Vol. 167, pp. 221–227, 2004.

13. Jingsi Yang and Jun John Xu, “Synthesis and Characterization of Carbon-Coated Lithium Transition 

Metal Phosphates LiMPO4 (M=Fe, Mn, Co, Ni) Prepared via a Nonaqueous Sol-Gel Route,” Journal 

of the Electrochemical Society, Vol. 153, No. 4, pp. A716–A723, 2006.

14. Ali Eftekhari, “Surface Modification of Thin-Film Based LiCoPO4 5 V Cathode with Metal Oxide,” 

Journal of The Electrochemical Society, Vol. 151, No. 9, pp. A1456–A1460, 2004.

15. Yu-Shi He, Zi-Feng Ma, Xiao-Zhen Liao, and Yi Jiang, “Synthesis and characterization of 

submicron-sized LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 by a simple self-propagating solid-state metathesis method,” 

Journal of Power Sources, Vol. 163, No. 2, pp. 1053–1058, 2007.
Figure 1.—Projected specific energy for chemistry options.

0

50

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

Li-S .65 mA/cm2

ETDP/Si-comp 25%

LiCoPO4/LTO

ETDP 300mAh/g / Li metal

ETDP 300mAh/g

baseline SOA

Li-S thin collector 25% C

Li-S thin collector 5% C

1100 mAh/g S

800 mAh/g S

ETDP/Si-comp 0% 4-mil

ETDP/Si-comp 0%

ETDP/Si-comp 14% 4-milETDP/Si-comp 25% 4-mil

ETDP/Si-comp 25%ETDP/Si-comp 40%

Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2/

Si-comp

LiCoPO4/LTO

LiMn2O4 spinel /LiTO2

LiCoPO4/LiTiO2

LiCoPO4 (olivine)/Li-metal

LiNiMn2O4 spinel/Li-metal

ETDP 250mAh/g/Li-metalETDP 300mAh/g/Li-metal

Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2/

Li-metal

SOA baseline

LiCoPO4 (olivine)/graphite

LiNiMn2O4 spinel/graphite

p

cy

Wh/kg - 35 Ah cells

Li-S Si-composite Hi-Voltage Li metal 

Plastic prismatic case

NASA/TM

—2010-216791 1
Figure 2.—Projected energy density for chemistry options.

0

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Li-S .65 mA/cm2

ETDP/Si-comp 25%

LiCoPO4/LTO

ETDP 300mAh/g / Li metal

ETDP 300mAh/g

baseline SOA

Li-S thin collector 25% C

Li-S thin collector 5% C

1100 mAh/g S

800 mAh/g S

ETDP/Si-comp 0% 4-mil

ETDP/Si-comp 0%

ETDP/Si-comp 14% 4-milETDP/Si-comp 25% 4-mil

ETDP/Si-comp 25%ETDP/Si-comp 40%

Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2/

Si-comp

LiCoPO4/LTO

LiMn2O4 spinel /LiTO2

LiCoPO4/LiTiO2

LiCoPO4 (olivine)/Li-metal

LiNiMn2O4 spinel/Li-metal

ETDP 250mAh/g/Li-metalETDP 300mAh/g/Li-metal

Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2/

Li-metal

SOA baseline

LiCoPO4 (olivine)/graphite

LiNiMn2O4 spinel/graphite

pr

cy

Wh/L - 35 Ah cells

Li-S Si-composite Hi-Voltage Li metal 

Plastic prismatic case

NASA/TM

—2010-216791 1
Figure 3.—Cell design effects on specific energy.

0

50

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

Li-S practical ETDP

/Sicomposite

ETDP 

/ Li metal

ETDP

 /graphite

35 Ah steel pr

35 Ah Aluminu

cylindrical

plastic prisma

18650-size

Wh/kg

NASA/TM

—2010-216791 1
Figure 4.—Projected specific energy for final options.

0

50

350

300

250

200

150

100

Li-S thin collector 25% C

diluent

Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2

/ Si-comp

ETDP/Si-comp 14%, thk

electrode

LiCoPO4 (olivine)/Li-metal

LiNiMn2O4 spinel/Li-metal

ETDP 300mAh/g / Li-metal

prism

cylin

Li-S Si-composite Li metal

Wh/kg - 35 Ah cells

NASA/TM

—2010-216791 
Figure 5.—Projected Energy Density for Final Options

0

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Li-S thin collector 25% C

diluent

Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2

/ Si-comp

ETDP/Si-comp 14%, thk

electrode

LiCoPO4 (olivine)/Li-metal

LiNiMn2O4 spinel/Li-metal

ETDP 300mAh/g / Li-metal

Li(Ni0

33M

0

33C

0

33)O2

prismatic 

cylindrica

Li-S Si-composite Li metal

Wh/L - 35 Ah cells

NASA/TM

—2010-216791 
Figure 6.—Percent gain in specific energy of final options over Li-ion SOA cells.

0%

80%

60%

40%

20%

120%

100%

Li-S thin collector 25% C

diluent

Li(Ni0.33Mn0.33Co0.33)O2

/ Si-comp

ETDP/Si-comp 14%, thk

electrode

LiCoPO4 (olivine)/Li-metal

LiNiMn2O4 spinel/Li-metal

ETDP 300mAh/g / Li-metal

Li-S Si-composite Li metal

Wh/kg - 35 Ah prismatic cells

NASA/TM

—2010-216791 
Figure 7.—Safety weightings for each chemistry.

(Sum of individual weights totals 100.) 

NASA/TM 2010-216791


REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-09-2010 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

A Study on Advanced Lithium-Based Battery Cell Chemistries to Enhance Lunar Exploration 

Missions 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Reid, Concha, M.; Bennett, William, R. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 038957.04.07.03.01.03 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-17415 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2010-216791 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Categories: 44, 15, 18, 20, and 91 

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

NASAs Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) Energy Storage Project conducted an advanced lithium-based battery 

chemistry feasibility study to determine the best advanced chemistry to develop for the Altair Lunar Lander and the Extravehicular 

Activities (EVA) advanced Lunar surface spacesuit. These customers require safe, reliable batteries with extremely high specific energy as 

compared to state-of-the-art. The specific energy goals for the development project are 220 watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg) delivered at the 

battery-level at 0 degrees Celsius (°C) at a C/10 discharge rate. Continuous discharge rates between C/5 and C/2, operation between 0 and 

30 °C and 200 cycles are targeted. Electrode materials that were considered include layered metal oxides, spinel oxides, and olivine-type 

cathode materials, and lithium metal, lithium alloy, and silicon-based composite anode materials. Advanced cell chemistry options were 

evaluated with respect to multiple quantitative and qualitative attributes while considering their projected performance at the end of the 

available development timeframe. Following a rigorous ranking process, a chemistry that combines a lithiated nickel manganese cobalt 

oxide Li(LiNMC)O2 cathode with a silicon-based composite anode was selected as the technology that can potentially offer the best 

combination of safety, specific energy, energy density, and likelihood of success.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Lithium batteries; Storage batteries; Electric batteries; Electrochemical cells; Energy storage; Space missions; Spacecraft power 

systems; Electric power systems 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

28 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18