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

a rocket with a large wireframe conical nozzle soars through space above a reddish-orange planet
An illustration of Howe Industries' Pulsed Plasma Rocket (PPR) concept. (Image credit: Howe Industries via YouTube)

An innovative rocket system could revolutionize future deep space missions to Mars, reducing travel time to the Red Planet to just a few months. 

The goal of landing humans on Mars has presented a myriad of challenges, including the need to quickly transport large payloads to and from the distant planet, which, depending on the positions of Earth and Mars, would take almost two years for a round trip using current propulsion technology.

The Pulsed Plasma Rocket (PPR), under development by Howe Industries, is a propulsion system designed to be far more efficient than current methods of deep space propulsion, enabling the trip between Earth and the Red Planet to be made in just two months. Specifically, the rocket will have a high specific impulse or Isp, a measure of how efficiently an engine generates thrust. This technology could therefore enable astronauts and cargo to travel to and from Mars more efficiently and rapidly than existing spacecraft, according to a statement from NASA. 

Related: How long does it take to get to Mars?

Stemming from the Pulsed Fission Fusion concept, the PPR uses a fission-based nuclear power system, which obtains energy from the controlled splitting of atoms, to generate thrust for spacecraft propulsion. However, the PPR is smaller, simpler and more affordable than previous concepts. 

In addition to enabling further range missions, the PPR could support much heavier spacecraft, meaning additional shielding could be installed to reduce a crew's exposure to harmful high-energy particles, called Galactic Cosmic Rays, endured during long-duration spaceflight.

"The PPR enables a whole new era in space exploration," NASA officials said. 

"The exceptional performance of the PPR, combining high Isp and high thrust, holds the potential to revolutionize space exploration," the statement reads. "The system's high efficiency allows for manned missions to Mars to be completed within a mere two months."

The PPR concept is now moving into Phase II of the NASA Innovative Advanced Concept (NIAC) study, having completed Phase I, which focused on the neutronics of the propulsion system, designing the spacecraft, power system and necessary subsystems, analyzing the magnetic nozzle capabilities, and determining trajectories and benefits, according to the statement. 

During Phase II, developers will build upon the assessments from Phase I to optimize the engine design, perform proof-of-concept experiments and design a spacecraft concept to better protect crewed flights to Mars. Currently visited only by robotic explorers, the PPR could one day bring NASA closer to establishing a permanent base on Mars.  

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Samantha Mathewson
Contributing Writer

Samantha Mathewson joined Space.com as an intern in the summer of 2016. She received a B.A. in Journalism and Environmental Science at the University of New Haven, in Connecticut. Previously, her work has been published in Nature World News. When not writing or reading about science, Samantha enjoys traveling to new places and taking photos! You can follow her on Twitter @Sam_Ashley13. 

  • 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/ .
    Reply
  • danR
    That (sub-par) video is 3 years old and explains nothing. The text is hardly more helpful.
    Reply
  • danR
    Unclear Engineer said:
    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.
    Reply
  • 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".
    Reply
  • 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.....?!
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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 .
    Reply
  • Mergatroid
    danR said:
    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.
    Reply
  • 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!
    Reply
  • 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/publication/253281043_ANALYSIS_OF_LOW_THRUST_ORBIT_TRANSFERS_USING_THE_LAGRANGE_PLANETARY_EQUATIONS
    Reply