Author Topic: DRACO: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration  (Read 57468 times)

Offline MickQ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 929
  • Atherton, Australia.
  • Liked: 219
  • Likes Given: 690
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #40 on: 01/28/2023 02:22 am »
I certainly would not put it past them. In fact, I expect that to happen.  Mind you, these days they tend to use Super Glue more than chains.  Easier to carry, cheaper than good quality chain and padlocks and more difficult to undo without harming the poor protesters.

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2094
  • Likes Given: 3421
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #41 on: 01/28/2023 04:05 am »
An NTR  based on NERVA specs can't get to Mars with any less fuel mass requirement than a fully refueled Starship from LEO.

This is because of a larger dry mass and no aerobraking on Mars.

NTR doesn't make sense in the era of low cost refuels to LEO.

To halve the transit time to Mars an NTR would require an ISP of 1750. That'd be the lightbulb gas fuel design.  A fantasy right now.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ycrQlKql9fft9oLDoW1uP-rotK-Y5yVtH4T3S2ZKgk4
Well more or less as you said it does make sense if they (NASA/DARPA) design a NTR with a better characteristics than what was proposed for project TIMBERWIND - no need for 1700+  ISP but a 1000-1100 ISP with a T/W higher than 20 ( or as you said a single digit T/W but with 1700+ ISP ) .

TWR ratio won't make up for a mere 1100 ISP.

I didn't count Oberth effects for either chemical or NTR solution.   There's extra on bother sides of the equation.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6793
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 10399
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #42 on: 01/28/2023 08:20 am »
As far as aerobraking being an arbitrary restriction, you design a large LH2 tank and radioactive engine that has to be as far away from the cargo that can aerobrake.  I doubt it is possible, and if it is possible, it's impossibly hard and expensive to test and iterate.  But you are welcome to try.  Do keep in mind basic aerodynamic rules such as center of mass lining up with center of drag.
Failure of imagination is not a physical constraint. Architectures from inflatable decelerators to side-braking (gee, better not just dismiss that one out-of-hand!) to engine-first with an articulated heatshield, etc, are hardly new or novel designs.
Incidentally, centre of mass and centre of drag do not need to line up, and generally don't even for existing capsules, as lifting entries are the norm to allow for steering.

Actually precise atmospheric entry of a vehicle with two comparable masses at two ends would require significant new development.
New != impossible. In fact, there's a chemical architecture cited in this very thread with the assumption that it is the superior one, that mounts the engine mass out at one end of the vehicle and crew section at the other...

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15554
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8901
  • Likes Given: 1398
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #43 on: 01/28/2023 04:49 pm »
People get mad about all sorts of things these days.  I think we can predict that many will not like this idea.

Just ignore them, what are they going to do? Chain themselves on CCAFS' gates?
Lawsuits and ballots for starters.  I don't think it will be the usual anarchy crowd leading the complaints about this one.  It'll be people with lawyers and money.  A reactor is a different deal than an RTG.  Very few have been launched, the last in 1988.  One that reentered was a giant costly headache - and not for the country that launched it.  Another released a giant radioactive cloud in orbit, which is still a concern.  I'm a space supporter, but I don't want another one of these flying over my head, and I don't want it launched by something with 0.98 reliability, or 0.99 reliability, which encompasses all known launch vehicles.  That's not good enough.  Also, if the U.S. does this, other countries will follow.  China, a country that lets giant CZ-7 core stages reenter uncontrolled, already has a program for a big nuclear thermal reactor.  Fun, right?

 - Ed kyle
« Last Edit: 01/28/2023 05:39 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Liked: 5411
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #44 on: 01/28/2023 08:56 pm »

I have a hard time getting excited about this.

NASA has tilted at the nuclear windmill multiple times in past couple decades and the efforts end up terminated or going nowhere.  Project Prometheus (nuke electric) cancelled in 2005.  Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator cancelled in 2013.  No flight demo for Kilopower since its ground test in 2018.  Etc.

DARPA has tilted at the space launch/propulsion windmill multiple times in the past couple decades and those efforts also end up terminated or going nowhere.  HiDiVE solar thermal cancelled sometime after 2007.  ALASA air launch cancelled in 2015.  XS-1 reusable first-stage cancelled in 2020.  Etc.

The last time the US Government went after nuke thermal was under SNTP, which was terminated in 1994.

Given this history, a betting man would bet against DARPA’s latest DRACO project, with or without NASA’s help.  I’m particularly skeptical that the environmental issues associated with ground testing the engine can be afforded on a DARPA budget.

Even if DRACO succeeds, NASA’s involvement appears to be limited to technical lead.  The requirements and budget still come from DARPA, and they seem focused on rapid orbit and plane changes for military smallsats, not the scale, environment, or reliability required for human deep space exploration.  NASA may resurrect some expertise in the general technical area, but DRACO won’t produce a nuke thermal stage for humans to Mars.

I’m all for someone developing a nuclear propulsion stage that actually gets used for once.  But I don’t see anything about DRACO that overcomes the decades-old lack of a driving need for such a capability or other failings of predecessor programs.  Or any hardware that will be particularly applicable to human deep space exploration beyond getting some experience in the general technical area.

FWIW...
« Last Edit: 01/28/2023 09:02 pm by VSECOTSPE »

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2094
  • Likes Given: 3421
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #45 on: 01/28/2023 09:52 pm »
As far as aerobraking being an arbitrary restriction, you design a large LH2 tank and radioactive engine that has to be as far away from the cargo that can aerobrake.  I doubt it is possible, and if it is possible, it's impossibly hard and expensive to test and iterate.  But you are welcome to try.  Do keep in mind basic aerodynamic rules such as center of mass lining up with center of drag.
Failure of imagination is not a physical constraint. Architectures from inflatable decelerators to side-braking (gee, better not just dismiss that one out-of-hand!) to engine-first with an articulated heatshield, etc, are hardly new or novel designs.
Incidentally, centre of mass and centre of drag do not need to line up, and generally don't even for existing capsules, as lifting entries are the norm to allow for steering.

Actually precise atmospheric entry of a vehicle with two comparable masses at two ends would require significant new development.
New != impossible. In fact, there's a chemical architecture cited in this very thread with the assumption that it is the superior one, that mounts the engine mass out at one end of the vehicle and crew section at the other...

The chemical architecture is testable.  The nuclear one is not.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11013
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1282
  • Likes Given: 739
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #46 on: 01/29/2023 01:48 pm »
They should not be wasting time on nuclear propulsion.  They should be investing time in nuclear power generation, both for settlements and for space stations.
« Last Edit: 01/29/2023 01:55 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline GuessWho

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #47 on: 01/29/2023 07:48 pm »

Even if DRACO succeeds, NASA’s involvement appears to be limited to technical lead.  The requirements and budget still come from DARPA, and they seem focused on rapid orbit and plane changes for military smallsats, not the scale, environment, or reliability required for human deep space exploration.  NASA may resurrect some expertise in the general technical area, but DRACO won’t produce a nuke thermal stage for humans to Mars.


FWIW...


Really.  So inform the group exactly what the differences are between the DARPA DRACO design as proposed and what it takes for a nuke thermal stage for humans to Mars.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
  • Liked: 1158
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #48 on: 01/29/2023 10:28 pm »
If I understand correctly, DRACO wants to use HALEU, but that's a huge problem for NASA (less so for DARPA).

There appears to be very little HALEU production capability within the US. Most of the fancy new terrestrial reactor designs like Terrapower were expecting to buy cheap russian HALEU, so the new nuclear industry basically shot itself in the foot with lack of domestic fuel production capability. There's noises that DoE wants to help spin up new HALEU production capability recently, but that will take a while to stand up and it still gets treated more like HEU, which means the paper trail is enormous.

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Liked: 5411
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #49 on: 01/30/2023 01:03 am »
So inform the group exactly what the differences are between the DARPA DRACO design as proposed and what it takes for a nuke thermal stage for humans to Mars.

Isp is different.  The DRACO BAA has a requirement of 700s.  Assumptions for NASA human Mars missions start around 900s.

Thrust will be different.  DARPA wants to move satellites, not crew modules and landers.

Mission duration will probably be different.  Unknown what DARPA is looking at, but it’s probably not 2-3 years like conjunction- and opposition-class Mars missions.

Heat rejection may be different, depending on exactly where DARPA is looking to operate.

Etc.

If, unlike its predecessors, DRACO gets to flight, it will resurrect some competency at NASA in nuclear thermal propulsion.  But it won’t produce a nuclear thermal stage, or even engine, that NASA can use to send astronauts to/from Mars.  That will require a lot more investment in a larger and more capable engine/stage.

Regardless, I’m skeptical that DRACO gets to flight.  Like its predecessors, there’s no pressing need for this capability on the defense side.  (And if there was, it would be a black program.)  And the DRACO BAA assumes no ground testing for the engine, which is unrealistic.  The spacecraft and launch will be expensive enough that someone will want to know it works before putting it in orbit.  But the environmental costs of ground testing are prohibitive for a DARPA project.  At some point, they’ll run into that reality if the high cost versus weak need conundrum for space nuclear systems doesn’t get them first.

FWIW...

Offline punder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1284
  • Liked: 1895
  • Likes Given: 1513
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #50 on: 01/30/2023 02:31 am »
Elon got it right—fuel is cheap, so optimize for a huge fuel load, develop in-space refueling, and stop worrying about maximizing Isp. No one else seems to have figured this out, so we keep seeing efforts like this one, where you are multiplying tiny probabilities to get an infinitesimally small probability of ever accomplishing anything. But money changes hands so it’s not really a loss for certain players, I guess. :)

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2577
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 432
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #51 on: 01/30/2023 03:33 am »
Elon got it right—fuel is cheap, so optimize for a huge fuel load, develop in-space refueling, and stop worrying about maximizing Isp.

Propellant is cheap if tanker rocketry is fully reusable, yes. 

Quote from: CNBC 11/5/2019
"With respect to space, I think there’s really just one problem, which is a fully and rapidly reusable orbital rocket. This is the holy grail," Musk said, speaking with Lt. Gen. John Thompson at the Air Force’s Space Pitch Day event.

"SpaceX has made some progress in reusing the booster," Musk said. But that’s still only part of the rocket. As Musk said, "It’s absolutely profound to have a reusable rocket."

"A giant reusable craft costs much less than a small expendable craft," Musk said.

Of course, the same could be said for a reusable LH2 tanker system, if someone wanted to invest in interplanetary NTR LH2 plant/tanker/depot infrastructure to parallel the methalox infrastructure.  The need isn't clear, though.  And if no one steps up with such deep-pocket commitment, soon, where does that leave the NTR space demo, afterward?

You could almost understand NTR as a backup tech, if it enabled ultra-mass-efficient ground launch.  But of course it doesn't.

Outside Earth's gravity well, the next leap in propellant cost-cutting could come from thermosphere trawling and on-orbit manufacture.  E.g., if 96%+ of propellant (ASCENT) is conjured on-orbit, cost falls again. 

That potential is little noticed.  But consider scale:  you could transfer an immense AG space station from Earth orbit to Mars orbit, with negligible tanker supply and cost.  Cf. NASA's modest NTR ambitions, and modest lunar ISRU ambitions.
« Last Edit: 01/30/2023 04:01 am by LMT »

Offline RON_P

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 90
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #52 on: 01/30/2023 04:47 pm »
So inform the group exactly what the differences are between the DARPA DRACO design as proposed and what it takes for a nuke thermal stage for humans to Mars.

Isp is different.  The DRACO BAA has a requirement of 700s.  Assumptions for NASA human Mars missions start around 900s.

Thrust will be different.  DARPA wants to move satellites, not crew modules and landers.

Mission duration will probably be different.  Unknown what DARPA is looking at, but it’s probably not 2-3 years like conjunction- and opposition-class Mars missions.

Heat rejection may be different, depending on exactly where DARPA is looking to operate.

Etc.

If, unlike its predecessors, DRACO gets to flight, it will resurrect some competency at NASA in nuclear thermal propulsion.  But it won’t produce a nuclear thermal stage, or even engine, that NASA can use to send astronauts to/from Mars.  That will require a lot more investment in a larger and more capable engine/stage.

Regardless, I’m skeptical that DRACO gets to flight.  Like its predecessors, there’s no pressing need for this capability on the defense side.  (And if there was, it would be a black program.)  And the DRACO BAA assumes no ground testing for the engine, which is unrealistic.  The spacecraft and launch will be expensive enough that someone will want to know it works before putting it in orbit.  But the environmental costs of ground testing are prohibitive for a DARPA project.  At some point, they’ll run into that reality if the high cost versus weak need conundrum for space nuclear systems doesn’t get them first.

FWIW...
700s  :-\ man that's like nothing - like no material or architecture advancements since TIMBERWIND ( SNTP ) ?

Offline sebk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 772
  • Europe
  • Liked: 969
  • Likes Given: 27160
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #53 on: 01/30/2023 05:13 pm »
People get mad about all sorts of things these days.  I think we can predict that many will not like this idea.

Just ignore them, what are they going to do? Chain themselves on CCAFS' gates?
Lawsuits and ballots for starters.  I don't think it will be the usual anarchy crowd leading the complaints about this one.  It'll be people with lawyers and money.  A reactor is a different deal than an RTG.  Very few have been launched, the last in 1988.  One that reentered was a giant costly headache - and not for the country that launched it.  Another released a giant radioactive cloud in orbit, which is still a concern.  I'm a space supporter, but I don't want another one of these flying over my head, and I don't want it launched by something with 0.98 reliability, or 0.99 reliability, which encompasses all known launch vehicles.  That's not good enough.  Also, if the U.S. does this, other countries will follow.  China, a country that lets giant CZ-7 core stages reenter uncontrolled, already has a program for a big nuclear thermal reactor.  Fun, right?

 - Ed kyle

TBF. uranium reactors are safer in the case of a launcher crash than RTGs. Unfired (or just fired to criticality for a few seconds for the purpose of control characterization) is pretty much safe. The worst thing is (chemically) toxic materials, but such were and are launched in copious amounts already. It only becomes problematic after the reactor was fired for a few minutes and it now contains measurable amounts of fission products.

We probably shouldn't launch it into short life orbits nor orbits with a high risk of collision. But if the thing would end up in a orbit with 10000+ years decay, it's generally fine.

Offline sebk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 772
  • Europe
  • Liked: 969
  • Likes Given: 27160
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #54 on: 01/30/2023 05:27 pm »
As far as aerobraking being an arbitrary restriction, you design a large LH2 tank and radioactive engine that has to be as far away from the cargo that can aerobrake.  I doubt it is possible, and if it is possible, it's impossibly hard and expensive to test and iterate.  But you are welcome to try.  Do keep in mind basic aerodynamic rules such as center of mass lining up with center of drag.
Failure of imagination is not a physical constraint. Architectures from inflatable decelerators to side-braking (gee, better not just dismiss that one out-of-hand!) to engine-first with an articulated heatshield, etc, are hardly new or novel designs.
Incidentally, centre of mass and centre of drag do not need to line up, and generally don't even for existing capsules, as lifting entries are the norm to allow for steering.

Actually precise atmospheric entry of a vehicle with two comparable masses at two ends would require significant new development.
New != impossible. In fact, there's a chemical architecture cited in this very thread with the assumption that it is the superior one, that mounts the engine mass out at one end of the vehicle and crew section at the other...

Not to the extent involved. We're talking about TWR 3 to 6 engines and whole vehicle TWR of 0.2+ (otherwise Oberth losses make the exercise even more pointless than it initially looks like). And we're talking much larger tanks (~2.35x the linear size of methalox ones) which exacerbate the issues.

Anyway, if you add aerocapture capability to so huge tanks your mass ratio is going straight through the bottom as the tankage must now survive 2-3g load not 0.3g loads and to carry ~5.5x heat shield. This eats away any feeble performance gain there could have been on purely propulsive option.

Offline sebk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 772
  • Europe
  • Liked: 969
  • Likes Given: 27160
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #55 on: 01/30/2023 05:42 pm »
As far as aerobraking being an arbitrary restriction, you design a large LH2 tank and radioactive engine that has to be as far away from the cargo that can aerobrake.  I doubt it is possible, and if it is possible, it's impossibly hard and expensive to test and iterate.  But you are welcome to try.  Do keep in mind basic aerodynamic rules such as center of mass lining up with center of drag.
Failure of imagination is not a physical constraint. Architectures from inflatable decelerators to side-braking (gee, better not just dismiss that one out-of-hand!) to engine-first with an articulated heatshield, etc, are hardly new or novel designs.
Incidentally, centre of mass and centre of drag do not need to line up, and generally don't even for existing capsules, as lifting entries are the norm to allow for steering.

Actually precise atmospheric entry of a vehicle with two comparable masses at two ends would require significant new development.
New != impossible. In fact, there's a chemical architecture cited in this very thread with the assumption that it is the superior one, that mounts the engine mass out at one end of the vehicle and crew section at the other...

The chemical architecture is testable.  The nuclear one is not.

TBF. you could launch a test article with a dummy stand-in for the reactor and test the re-entry on the Earth's side.

But I'd still pose this is not viable for interplanetary human transportation, because it's unlikely someone is approving aerocapture attempt on the return leg. And without the aerocapture theres not even a remote shot at a transfer time gain.

Offline GuessWho

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #56 on: 01/31/2023 01:05 am »
Quote

Isp is different.  The DRACO BAA has a requirement of 700s.  Assumptions for NASA human Mars missions start around 900s.

Thrust will be different.  DARPA wants to move satellites, not crew modules and landers.

Mission duration will probably be different.  Unknown what DARPA is looking at, but it’s probably not 2-3 years like conjunction- and opposition-class Mars missions.

Heat rejection may be different, depending on exactly where DARPA is looking to operate.

Etc.


DARPA has a minimum requirement of 700 seconds, doesn't say anything about what the design wants to be or could be.  It could be 800, 900 or 1000 seconds.  And if NASA and DARPA are collaborating, why would the ISP be different between the two?

I didn't see any requirements on thrust level.  NASA has always looked at multiple engines so no way to tell how many DARPA engines it might take to meet a NASA mission design.  Could be one or ten.  So that argument fails .....

So no details on mission design or life so that means they must be different - gotcha .....  Very scientific.

Heat rejection is a spacecraft issue, not an NTP issue so not sure how that argument applies either.

From everything I have read, DARPA never planned to do a ground test.  Too expensive and would take too long.  That is a NASA mentality.  So not a hurdle that DARPA has to jump.

Anyway, thanks for your opinion.

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1752
  • Liked: 5411
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #57 on: 01/31/2023 03:02 am »
700s  :-\ man that's like nothing - like no material or architecture advancements since TIMBERWIND ( SNTP ) ?

There have been, and there’s one new-ish design concept in particular that led to DRACO.  But DARPA programs are done on a shoestring, especially the bigger and more expensive they are.  DRACO falls in that big/expensive category for DARPA TTO, which churns out things like advanced munitions for its bread and butter, not big rocket stages.  So they’re relaxing the requirements to the minimum possible to tilt at this windmill for least dollars possible.  If they succeed, it would still be a step gain over LOX/LH2.  But it won’t be something that can slot into a human Mars mission without a lot more investment and time.

DARPA has a minimum requirement of 700 seconds, doesn't say anything about what the design wants to be or could be.  It could be 800, 900 or 1000 seconds.  And if NASA and DARPA are collaborating, why would the ISP be different between the two?

Because DARPA is paying the bills and DARPA is the contracting agency.  It will be their requirements that drive the program.  NASA is just supplying technical support via underutilized FTEs that it has to pay for anyway.

DARPA is interested in pushing satellites around, not sending astronauts to Mars.  DARPA programs are done on a shoestring.  They’re not going to pay to push the performance on something this expensive if the lower figure is all they need.

Quote
I didn't see any requirements on thrust level.  NASA has always looked at multiple engines so no way to tell how many DARPA engines it might take to meet a NASA mission design.  Could be one or ten.  So that argument fails .....

NASA Mars DRM 5.0 and DRM 4.0 and DRM 3.0 all assume no more than three engines, just enough for engine-out capability and keeping complexity to the bare minimum.  No one is going to run four of these engines, forget ten.

The fact that a minimum thrust is not specified should tell us something about how cheaply DARPA is trying to run DRACO.  The demo stage will be as small and inexpensive as possible.

Quote
So no details on mission design or life so that means they must be different - gotcha .....  Very scientific.

Even if it had the requisite Isp and thrust, to support human Mars missions, DRACO would need a large-scale, very low/zero-boiloff LH2 capability that does not exist today and that the program is not investing in.  Maybe that capability will come along later, but the stage DRACO produces will not be a stage of the type NASA needs to send astros to Mars.

Again, the fact that a CONOPs or minimum design life or even number of firings is not specified should tell us something about how cheaply DARPA is trying to run DRACO.  It’s going to be a bare bones demo with the hope that the services pick up the cost of evolving the stage into something useful/operational.

Quote
Heat rejection is a spacecraft issue, not an NTP issue so not sure how that argument applies either.

It’s something these stages have to deal with one way or another.

Quote
From everything I have read, DARPA never planned to do a ground test.  Too expensive and would take too long.  That is a NASA mentality.  So not a hurdle that DARPA has to jump.

It’s an unrealistic assumption on DARPA’s part, which is typical DARPA.  Similar unrealistic assumptions doomed ALASA, HiDiVE, XS-1, etc.

To be clear, I’m a fan of DARPA, and I’m a fan of nuclear propulsion.  I wrote an award-winning essay on NERVA back in the day and helped keep Kilopower alive by serving as its HQ PE when no one else would step up.  I’m also glad to see DARPA tilt at this windmill on a shoestring budget when MSFC makes no visible progress with the $100M+ in earmarks that it gets for nuclear annually.  But folks should be sober about what DRACO is actually aiming to produce and what its chances of producing a flight article really are.
« Last Edit: 01/31/2023 01:10 pm by VSECOTSPE »

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
  • Liked: 1158
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #58 on: 01/31/2023 04:27 am »
A cynical take is using DRACO to (re)establish "modern" knowledge/procedures/regulations while fully expecting it to DARPA fail, then some civilian company rolls in on the coattails. Like Atomos Space and their nuclear OTV.

Much the same way KRUSTY/kilopower was reestablishing modern space nuclear contexts, simply because the last time people got serious was "too long ago" in the eyes of too many people.

Offline MickQ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 929
  • Atherton, Australia.
  • Liked: 219
  • Likes Given: 690
Re: NASA and DARPA nuclear propulsion collaboration
« Reply #59 on: 01/31/2023 09:30 am »
Would this technology be useful in a Mars shuttle that goes between LEO and LMO, accelerating to midpoint, flipping and decelerating to the destination ?

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1