"Other testing in the company’s large vacuum chamber verified efficiencies of greater than 50% in the conversion of electricity to thrust through 112 kw. . .
. . .The efficiency predictions climb to 60% at 200 kw., or full thrust."
The point is efficiency in converting electrical to kinetic energy. They're saying they have 50% efficiency and expect 60%. It's very unlikely this sort of thruster will ever be able to lift spacecraft from the surface of the Earth. What Tom was saying the other day holds completely for this sort of thruster as well as for fission thrusters like TRITON. Since the energy of the system is set by the power supply, electrical in the case of VASIMR, the fission process in the case of TRITON and the fusion process in the case of a Poly thruster; rather than being set by the reaction of the propellants in the case of a chemical rocket; these other sorts of thrusters are more efficient with less thrust because higher Isp is a more efficient use of propellant.
TRITON is the ultimate expression of this in that it not only works with variable propellant but you can then enhance by dumping LOX into it.
IMHO, this is what we ought to be developing right now, since we're not paying for Constellation anymore:
http://www.engineeringatboeing.com/data ... 4-3863.pdf
which is just what I recommended to the Augustine commission. (No, I don't have any special position of influence here, I just wrote them a note like thousands of others.)
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis