DARPA moving forward with development of nuclear powered spacecraft

Flyaway

Flyaway

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
21 January 2015
Messages
15,030
Reaction score
24,272
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency on May 4 issued a solicitation for proposals for the next phase of a demonstration of a nuclear powered spacecraft.

The project, called Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO), started over a year ago when DARPA selected a preliminary design for a rocket engine reactor developed by General Atomics, and chose two conceptual spacecraft designs by Blue Origin and Lockheed Martin.

The next phases of the program will focus on the design, development, fabrication and assembly of a nuclear thermal rocket engine. DARPA will conduct a “full and open competition” so this opportunity is not limited to the companies that participated in the first phase, a spokesperson told SpaceNews. Proposals are due Aug. 5.
Click to expand...
Seems to have quite an early proposed flight date of fiscal year 2026.

https://spacenews.com/darpa-moving-forward-with-development-of-nuclear-powered-spacecraft/
 
Rather than start a new thread I’ll put this here.

Op-ed | It’s Time for Congress to Order the Nuclear Option

As NASA finally launches the first Space Launch System (SLS) mission, America is failing to invest in critical space propulsion technology needed to send astronauts to Mars.

The United States must develop space nuclear propulsion technologies to enable 21st-century human missions to Mars. Congress should immediately direct NASA and the Department of Energy to partner with a University Affiliated Research Center or Federally Funded Research and Development Center to create a new National Space Nuclear Propulsion Laboratory.

It is naive and against national interests for the U.S. to rely on expensive, outdated, slow, single-use chemically propelled rockets like SLS to transport astronauts to Mars. Instead, America must aggressively invest in developing space nuclear propulsion systems.
Click to expand...
 
Wow, the US military are now considering a nuclear powered aircraft again, I thought that after the last time they tried nuclear powered aircraft, the program got cancelled. I can see this new program going the same way.
 
Moose said:
Grey Havoc said:
On a related note:
https://news.slashdot.org/story/23/01/24/1820219/us-to-test-nuclear-powered-spacecraft-by-2027
Click to expand...
Disappointed but not surprised that they're going nuclear thermal rather than nuclear electric. It will be interesting to watch regardless.
Click to expand...
I remember seeing a VaSIMR mission profile with the main spacecraft spiralling out very slowly even at it's lowest isp/highest thrust and consequently spending a lot of time in the Van Allen belts. Crew would be launched in an Orion to rendezvous once it had reached high orbit, which makes manned missions in cislunar space complicated. Also, I gather, ion and plasma really only come into their own for manned missions at interplanetary ranges and timescales. So apparently, nuclear-thermal is best for cislunar applications in the near term and nuclear-electric for interplanetary missions in the long term.
 
Rhinocrates said:
Moose said:
Grey Havoc said:
On a related note:
https://news.slashdot.org/story/23/01/24/1820219/us-to-test-nuclear-powered-spacecraft-by-2027
Click to expand...
Disappointed but not surprised that they're going nuclear thermal rather than nuclear electric. It will be interesting to watch regardless.
Click to expand...
I remember seeing a VaSIMR mission profile with the main spacecraft spiralling out very slowly even at it's lowest isp/highest thrust and consequently spending a lot of time in the Van Allen belts. Crew would be launched in an Orion to rendezvous once it had reached high orbit, which makes manned missions in cislunar space complicated. Also, I gather, ion and plasma really only come into their own for manned missions at interplanetary ranges and timescales. So apparently, nuclear-thermal is best for cislunar applications in the near term and nuclear-electric for interplanetary missions in the long term.
Click to expand...
There are work-arounds for long exposure, including boosting the crew separately to meet the vehicle after it is beyond the belt or using a high-thrust chemical stage to boost the spacecraft on its initial leg. The immense radiation hazard of NTP, which makes any kind of rendezvous mission treacherous, doesn't go away easily.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if that could be used to extend RTG service life…freshening it.
 
One work-around actually is to recruit smokers and not give them any cigarettes for the journey. Provided they don't kill each other, their life expectancies will increase.
 
Sam.gov: Nuclear Thermal Rocket Propulsion RFI [Dec 13]

This Request for Information (RFI) from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)’s Tactical Technology Office (TTO) seeks to identify sources capable of providing innovative and revolutionary solutions for space qualified nuclear thermal rocket propulsion engine design, development, modeling and simulation, engine integration, autonomous engine and reactor control, engine instrumentation, and engine system integration. Engine system integration includes consideration of the required safety analysis needed to obtain nuclear launch authorization from the Department of Defense (DoD).

Updated Response Date: Jan 21, 2025 04:00 pm EST
Click to expand...
 
File under 'You didn't think of that?!'

https://aviationweek.com/space/laun...test-requirements-put-draco-launch-plans-hold
The team, including BWX Technologies (BWXT) and Lockheed Martin, hit snags in designing an engine that can be ground-tested safely while adhering to the protocols necessary to test a nuclear reactor, Matthew Sambora, one of two DRACO program managers in DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office, tells Aviation Week.

The U.S. has not launched a reactor since the 1960s, an era euphemistically referred to as “the time before safety was invented,” says Jim Shoemaker, DARPA’s second DRACO program manager. Scientists in the Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications program conducted six ground tests of radioactive reactors in open air between 1964 and 1969, “which we could never get approved to do today,” Shoemaker notes.
 
DARPA moving forward with *ANYTHING* remotely useful would at this day and age actually most likely be a sign of the end of times. Over the decades I've seen oodles of zany ideas floated by that Dastardly Arrogant Repulsive Poser Agency, *NONE* of which ever went beyond TRL 0, but that may well be just my personal unawareness...
 
Last edited:
“When DRACO was originally conceived of, that was pre- the precipitous decrease in launch costs that has been driven largely by SpaceX capabilities and the continued decrease that Starship offers if we can get it operational,”

Well, yes indeed. Fingers crossed. Here's hoping that the spherical/radial/omnidirectional launches trend towards narrower vertical cones and eventually single curved lines as intact rockets make it to orbit.
 
martinbayer said:
Surprise me...
Click to expand...
Überraschung!

Re: nuclear thermal vs. chemical: my recollection is that if you can refuel, the benefits of NTRs go down substantially versus merely shipping up more propellant. At least for anything we’re likely to do in space for the next 10-15 years. Maybe if we build large spacecraft with artificial gravity it might make a comeback.
 
Related:

Making a new case for space nuclear power

“Everything since 1965, when we launched our first reactor, has fizzled despite billions invested,” said Bhavya Lal, former NASA associate administrator for technology, policy and strategy. “We remain in R&D purgatory, producing papers, not kilowatts.”

In the case of DRACO, she said, “nobody was asking for it, and when things got in a jam, it was easier to let it go.”

She was speaking at a Washington Space Business Roundtable event last week to discuss a new report she and Roger Myers, a former Aerojet Rocketdyne executive and member of the National Academy of Engineering, recently completed for the Idaho National Laboratory regarding development of space nuclear power. That report noted the US had spent nearly $20 billion in constant-year dollars on space nuclear programs over the years, such as NERVA in the 1960s and Prometheus in the early 2000s, with little to show for it.
Click to expand...

Formal link of the report: https://inl.gov/content/uploads/2023/07/strategic-options-space-nuclear-leadership.pdf
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom