DARPA is seeking proposals for Phases 2 and 3 of the Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO) program for the design, development, fabrication, and assembly of a nuclear thermal rocket engine. The goal is to execute an in-space flight demonstration of nuclear thermal propulsion in fiscal year 2026.

The overall objective of DRACO is to enable time-critical missions over vast distances in cislunar space, the area between Earth and the moon. Nuclear thermal propulsion achieves high thrust-to-weight similar to chemical propulsion but with two to five times the efficiency using systems that are both faster and smaller than electric and chemical systems, respectively. These propulsive capabilities will enable the United States to enhance its interests in space and to expand possibilities for NASA’s long-duration human spaceflight missions.

Phase 1 of the DRACO program involved two parallel risk reduction activities. Track A focused on developing a preliminary design for the rocket engine reactor. Track B concentrated on developing a conceptual design for the in-orbit demonstration system.

DRACO’s planned Phases 2 and 3 will focus on developing and demonstrating nuclear thermal rocket engine operation in orbit. The Broad Agency Announcement can be found at sam.gov.

“The United States employs maneuver to maintain advantages in the land, sea, and air domains. However, maneuver is more challenging in space due to propulsion system limitations,” said Major Nathan Greiner, program manager in DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office. “To maintain technological superiority in space, the United States requires leap-ahead propulsion technology that the DRACO program will provide.”

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2022-05-04

dv said:

DARPA is seeking proposals for Phases 2 and 3 of the Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO) program for the design, development, fabrication, and assembly of a nuclear thermal rocket engine. The goal is to execute an in-space flight demonstration of nuclear thermal propulsion in fiscal year 2026.

The overall objective of DRACO is to enable time-critical missions over vast distances in cislunar space, the area between Earth and the moon. Nuclear thermal propulsion achieves high thrust-to-weight similar to chemical propulsion but with two to five times the efficiency using systems that are both faster and smaller than electric and chemical systems, respectively. These propulsive capabilities will enable the United States to enhance its interests in space and to expand possibilities for NASA’s long-duration human spaceflight missions.

Phase 1 of the DRACO program involved two parallel risk reduction activities. Track A focused on developing a preliminary design for the rocket engine reactor. Track B concentrated on developing a conceptual design for the in-orbit demonstration system.

DRACO’s planned Phases 2 and 3 will focus on developing and demonstrating nuclear thermal rocket engine operation in orbit. The Broad Agency Announcement can be found at sam.gov.

“The United States employs maneuver to maintain advantages in the land, sea, and air domains. However, maneuver is more challenging in space due to propulsion system limitations,” said Major Nathan Greiner, program manager in DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office. “To maintain technological superiority in space, the United States requires leap-ahead propulsion technology that the DRACO program will provide.”

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2022-05-04

DARPA = Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (a US military agency).

“cis” well what do you know soon it’ll be all about the woke pronouns and shit

Michael V said:

dv said:

DARPA is seeking proposals for Phases 2 and 3 of the Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO) program for the design, development, fabrication, and assembly of a nuclear thermal rocket engine. The goal is to execute an in-space flight demonstration of nuclear thermal propulsion in fiscal year 2026.

The overall objective of DRACO is to enable time-critical missions over vast distances in cislunar space, the area between Earth and the moon. Nuclear thermal propulsion achieves high thrust-to-weight similar to chemical propulsion but with two to five times the efficiency using systems that are both faster and smaller than electric and chemical systems, respectively. These propulsive capabilities will enable the United States to enhance its interests in space and to expand possibilities for NASA’s long-duration human spaceflight missions.

Phase 1 of the DRACO program involved two parallel risk reduction activities. Track A focused on developing a preliminary design for the rocket engine reactor. Track B concentrated on developing a conceptual design for the in-orbit demonstration system.

DRACO’s planned Phases 2 and 3 will focus on developing and demonstrating nuclear thermal rocket engine operation in orbit. The Broad Agency Announcement can be found at sam.gov.

“The United States employs maneuver to maintain advantages in the land, sea, and air domains. However, maneuver is more challenging in space due to propulsion system limitations,” said Major Nathan Greiner, program manager in DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office. “To maintain technological superiority in space, the United States requires leap-ahead propulsion technology that the DRACO program will provide.”

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2022-05-04

DARPA = Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (a US military agency).

Is having a military agency in charge of sending nuclear rockets into space, on top of conventional rockets that have a fairly high probability of exploding, really that good an idea?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

dv said:

DARPA is seeking proposals for Phases 2 and 3 of the Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO) program for the design, development, fabrication, and assembly of a nuclear thermal rocket engine. The goal is to execute an in-space flight demonstration of nuclear thermal propulsion in fiscal year 2026.

The overall objective of DRACO is to enable time-critical missions over vast distances in cislunar space, the area between Earth and the moon. Nuclear thermal propulsion achieves high thrust-to-weight similar to chemical propulsion but with two to five times the efficiency using systems that are both faster and smaller than electric and chemical systems, respectively. These propulsive capabilities will enable the United States to enhance its interests in space and to expand possibilities for NASA’s long-duration human spaceflight missions.

Phase 1 of the DRACO program involved two parallel risk reduction activities. Track A focused on developing a preliminary design for the rocket engine reactor. Track B concentrated on developing a conceptual design for the in-orbit demonstration system.

DRACO’s planned Phases 2 and 3 will focus on developing and demonstrating nuclear thermal rocket engine operation in orbit. The Broad Agency Announcement can be found at sam.gov.

“The United States employs maneuver to maintain advantages in the land, sea, and air domains. However, maneuver is more challenging in space due to propulsion system limitations,” said Major Nathan Greiner, program manager in DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office. “To maintain technological superiority in space, the United States requires leap-ahead propulsion technology that the DRACO program will provide.”

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2022-05-04

DARPA = Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (a US military agency).

Is having a military agency in charge of sending nuclear rockets into space, on top of conventional rockets that have a fairly high probability of exploding, really that good an idea?

yes, how else can you plausibly deny that accidental reentry and impact on an inconveniently populated area of oh wait

No doubt picking up where the NERVA programme was terminated. As I understand it, they were very close to putting on in the 2nd stage of the Saturn V rocket, and that would have given it a substantial boost for payload into orbit.

Spiny Norman said:

No doubt picking up where the NERVA programme was terminated. As I understand it, they were very close to putting on in the 2nd stage of the Saturn V rocket, and that would have given it a substantial boost for payload into orbit.

All about NERVA

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

dv said:

DARPA is seeking proposals for Phases 2 and 3 of the Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO) program for the design, development, fabrication, and assembly of a nuclear thermal rocket engine. The goal is to execute an in-space flight demonstration of nuclear thermal propulsion in fiscal year 2026.

The overall objective of DRACO is to enable time-critical missions over vast distances in cislunar space, the area between Earth and the moon. Nuclear thermal propulsion achieves high thrust-to-weight similar to chemical propulsion but with two to five times the efficiency using systems that are both faster and smaller than electric and chemical systems, respectively. These propulsive capabilities will enable the United States to enhance its interests in space and to expand possibilities for NASA’s long-duration human spaceflight missions.

Phase 1 of the DRACO program involved two parallel risk reduction activities. Track A focused on developing a preliminary design for the rocket engine reactor. Track B concentrated on developing a conceptual design for the in-orbit demonstration system.

DRACO’s planned Phases 2 and 3 will focus on developing and demonstrating nuclear thermal rocket engine operation in orbit. The Broad Agency Announcement can be found at sam.gov.

“The United States employs maneuver to maintain advantages in the land, sea, and air domains. However, maneuver is more challenging in space due to propulsion system limitations,” said Major Nathan Greiner, program manager in DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office. “To maintain technological superiority in space, the United States requires leap-ahead propulsion technology that the DRACO program will provide.”

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2022-05-04

DARPA = Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (a US military agency).

Is having a military agency in charge of sending nuclear rockets into space, on top of conventional rockets that have a fairly high probability of exploding, really that good an idea?

Yes

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Michael V said:

DARPA = Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (a US military agency).

Is having a military agency in charge of sending nuclear rockets into space, on top of conventional rockets that have a fairly high probability of exploding, really that good an idea?

Yes

Why is it a good idea?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Is having a military agency in charge of sending nuclear rockets into space, on top of conventional rockets that have a fairly high probability of exploding, really that good an idea?

Yes

Why is it a good idea?

The US military has more experience with launching rockets than any other organisation in the world. You wouldn’t want this kind of thing handled by less experienced agencies such as Nasa or the ESA.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Yes

Why is it a good idea?

The US military has more experience with launching rockets than any other organisation in the world. You wouldn’t want this kind of thing handled by less experienced agencies such as Nasa or the ESA.

yeah look how the last launch went we mean wen’t

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Yes

Why is it a good idea?

The US military has more experience with launching rockets than any other organisation in the world. You wouldn’t want this kind of thing handled by less experienced agencies such as Nasa or the ESA.

But the focus of a military organisation is very different from a science based organisation, and that becomes important when considering how to handle low probability, high consequence events, such as a nuclear device landing on a large city.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why is it a good idea?

The US military has more experience with launching rockets than any other organisation in the world. You wouldn’t want this kind of thing handled by less experienced agencies such as Nasa or the ESA.

But the focus of a military organisation is very different from a science based organisation, and that becomes important when considering how to handle low probability, high consequence events, such as a nuclear device landing on a large city.

They launch over the ocean

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The US military has more experience with launching rockets than any other organisation in the world. You wouldn’t want this kind of thing handled by less experienced agencies such as Nasa or the ESA.

But the focus of a military organisation is very different from a science based organisation, and that becomes important when considering how to handle low probability, high consequence events, such as a nuclear device landing on a large city.

They launch over the ocean

It’s certainly a relief that launch time is the only time anything can go wrong.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The US military has more experience with launching rockets than any other organisation in the world. You wouldn’t want this kind of thing handled by less experienced agencies such as Nasa or the ESA.

But the focus of a military organisation is very different from a science based organisation, and that becomes important when considering how to handle low probability, high consequence events, such as a nuclear device landing on a large city.

They launch over the ocean

look it’s simple just decide if it’s going to land somewhere you need retrieval costs covered, then call it Musk or Bezos or Branson or some such, but if it’s about to become disaster then hurry up and say it’s CHINA rocket easy

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But the focus of a military organisation is very different from a science based organisation, and that becomes important when considering how to handle low probability, high consequence events, such as a nuclear device landing on a large city.

They launch over the ocean

look it’s simple just decide if it’s going to land somewhere you need retrieval costs covered, then call it Musk or Bezos or Branson or some such, but if it’s about to become disaster then hurry up and say it’s CHINA rocket easy

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But the focus of a military organisation is very different from a science based organisation, and that becomes important when considering how to handle low probability, high consequence events, such as a nuclear device landing on a large city.

They launch over the ocean

It’s certainly a relief that launch time is the only time anything can go wrong.

I mean in terms of a rocket heading for an off-earth target with no return plan, that’s basically true. After the initial launch phase there was not much fear that New Horizons would come back and land on Mexico.

I concede it could be a potential issue for earth gravity assist manoeuvres but the high specific impulse of NTR rather removes the need for EGA.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

They launch over the ocean

It’s certainly a relief that launch time is the only time anything can go wrong.

I mean in terms of a rocket heading for an off-earth target with no return plan, that’s basically true. After the initial launch phase there was not much fear that New Horizons would come back and land on Mexico.

I concede it could be a potential issue for earth gravity assist manoeuvres but the high specific impulse of NTR rather removes the need for EGA.

I imagine with weight being a huge consideration when launching something you couldn’t exactly protect something from disintegrating if something went wrong

Maybe they can have one last pop at Afghanistan with this thing ?

I’ve got a design for a nuclear thermal rocket.
The higher the temperature, the better the efficiency.
So I’m running it at an extremely high temperature.
Above 1100 degrees C (but less than 3000 degrees C).
The heat shield of carbon, tungsten and molybdenum is designed to cope with such extreme temperatures.

Should I submit it?

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve got a design for a nuclear thermal rocket.
The higher the temperature, the better the efficiency.
So I’m running it at an extremely high temperature.
Above 1100 degrees C (but less than 3000 degrees C).
The heat shield of carbon, tungsten and molybdenum is designed to cope with such extreme temperatures.

Should I submit it?

Why not?

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve got a design for a nuclear thermal rocket.
The higher the temperature, the better the efficiency.
So I’m running it at an extremely high temperature.
Above 1100 degrees C (but less than 3000 degrees C).
The heat shield of carbon, tungsten and molybdenum is designed to cope with such extreme temperatures.

Should I submit it?

Why not?

^ I’m with him.

i’d go for an ion thruster using mercury

mercury on earth is bad, in space it could be a very effective mass to be thrown back. it rids the earth of mercury and makes an efficient rocket

i’d just use an RTG to create electrical power that can be stored in a battery. once the battery is full you fire pulses to get you to where you need to go.

probably best in an unmanned probe

small pulses over years could build up an enormous speed. no doubt you could use chemical rockets to point it in the right direction then activate the mercury ion thruster (you just have big tanks of mercury kept warm enough to stay liquid). the mercury in the tanks should provide some serious shielding for the electronics over the years in interstellar space. the shape would probably be a fat cyclinder.

you could send it to Proxima Centauri

Is mercury an appropriate propellent for ion rockets? Usually they choose a nobel gas for ion propulsion, hydrogen for NTR.

start small using nuclear , make something reliable then build on that knowledge.

you could send more unmanned probes to the planets so each planet has say 10 different probes sending back a strong signal for more amazing images.

you could experiment with an interplanetary intranet with the probes ie they fire messages to each other

dv said:

Is mercury an appropriate propellent for ion rockets? Usually they choose a nobel gas for ion propulsion, hydrogen for NTR.

its an industrial waste and provides some good shielding, it would create a thick barrier.

hopefully nothing hits it

the outer shell could be HDPE, thats good at stopping micrometeorites and radiation

a lid could open in flight , take some readings to make course corrections then be tucked away from damage

the way i see it, the interior would have nitrogen or an inert gas to help with getting rid of waste heat from computers

the probe would slow down as it approached the star system and allow itself to gently put itself into orbit then start broadcasting/ listening for any signs of life. no doubt solar cells could be deployed for extra energy so powerful directional signals could be sent back to earth.

it might be clever enough to listen and evaluate and broadcast to any life in the star systems ??

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

Is mercury an appropriate propellent for ion rockets? Usually they choose a nobel gas for ion propulsion, hydrogen for NTR.

its an industrial waste and provides some good shielding, it would create a thick barrier.

hopefully nothing hits it

Okay well we could tie it into The First Men in The Moon but I’ve already done by Hg joke today.