NASA-funded pulsed plasma rocket concept aims to send astronauts to Mars in 2 months

[Admin]

NASA is studying innovative rocket system developed by Howe Industries that could reducing travel time to the Red Planet to just a few months.

NASA-funded pulsed plasma rocket concept aims to send astronauts to Mars in 2 months : Read more

 

[Unclear Engineer]

This article is long on assertions and very lacking in explanations.

I found this to help explain what a pulsed plasma rocket is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_plasma_thruster . And, it sounds like it is not very new or very powerful in its previous versions. So, the development process here is to make a big and powerful version.

It is not the plasma fusion created thrust concept that others have been developing. For something about that, see https://pulsarfusion.com/products-development/fusion-propulsion/ .

 

[danR]

That (sub-par) video is 3 years old and explains nothing. The text is hardly more helpful.

 

[danR]

This article is long on assertions and very lacking in explanations.

If you drill down to Dr. Howe's site for details on Howe Industries' PPR concept, and NASA's May 1 rendition ("Pulsed Plasma Rocket (PPR): Shielded, Fast Transits for Humans to Mars" Loura Hall), there's a ramshackle impression redolent of hoaxiness. I don't know why NASA is mixed up with this, and perhaps a Congressional inquiry is what's called for.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I did not drill down into the article references. But, I would expect NASA to "smell a rat" if the proposal was simply a hoax.

The idea seems to be to scale up an existing technology by adding a more powerful energy source to make the electricity needed to create the plasma and direct it aft. The proposal is to use a fission type nuclear reactor instead of solar cells. That seems logical and conceptually doable. We have already build nuclear fission reactors and operated them in space (the SNAP reactors) decades ago. So, it is just a scale-up issue for development, at least conceptually.

And the bit about shielding goes along with that. The shielding needed to keep the crew from getting seriously irradiated by the fission reactor in the spacecraft can also be part of the shielding needed to protect the crew from other radiation from the Sun and "cosmic rays".

 

[Funnyman53(Voytek)]

Hi, This kind of Theoretical Exercise about Non-existing Space PROPULSION system is A harassment for Logical human mind by NASA...
First of all, the Starship from SpaceX will take 90 days to travel to Mars.... So, you telling me that NASA will spend Billions of dollars on Third-party development to "Save" 30days of travel time?!
Not to mention this Craft will have Nuclear Reactor on board And we Launch "it" in to Space!
WHAT COULD GO WRONG.....?!

 

[billslugg]

The pulse rocket is old technology that never panned out due to excessive energy usage, only 10% efficient as compared to other electric propulsion methods such as ion drive. The advantages are simplicity of construction, very small fuel requirements, extremely high exhaust velocity.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

There is a good discussion of the differences between "pulsed plasma" and "ion drive" thrusters here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_propulsion_engine .

 

[Mergatroid]

If you drill down to Dr. Howe's site for details on Howe Industries' PPR concept, and NASA's May 1 rendition ("Pulsed Plasma Rocket (PPR): Shielded, Fast Transits for Humans to Mars" Loura Hall), there's a ramshackle impression redolent of hoaxiness. I don't know why NASA is mixed up with this, and perhaps a Congressional inquiry is what's called for.

I hardly think NASA would allow a hoax to get to this stage. If they have a device they are testing, then the technology must be promising.

 

[Atlan0001]

To heck with velocity, which should only be averaged! Does its pulsed plasma system develop continuous accelerations / decelerations over necessary travel times?!

And another question! Mars can get quite a long way from the Earth in its longer orbit of the Sun! Are they talking only periods of time for traveling when Mars closes up in orbit of the Sun nearer to Earth in the two orbits? Which is about every two years in my understanding. They just about have to be talking best orbital closure time (every two years?!) for a heads-on meeting shorter two-month trip! They certainly aren't going to stern chase Mars in any case if they can help it. But there is a longer heads-on to meeting and a shorter heads-on to meeting, per relative positions in orbits.

It is one of those matters of intercepting a moving target!

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Atlan001, you need to do some study of orbital dynamics, particularly "transfer orbits" to understand what you are asking about.

Basically, a spacecraft needs to go from one planet's stable orbit to another planet's stable orbit along a path that is either (1) an elliptical orbit that intersects both planetary orbits, with acceleration at one end and deceleration at the other end, or (2) a path with constant acceleration to (approximately) half way there and deceleration the second half of the trip. (Yes, there are combinations of the 2 concepts that are also possible).

The technical approach to defining a specific transfer orbit involves writing a Lagrange equation for the intended process and solving it. It is not trivial to learn. You could start here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...NSFERS_USING_THE_LAGRANGE_PLANETARY_EQUATIONS

 

[josefnspace]

NASA - National Archaic Systems Agency