Rescue from interception and excessive cost. Potential and prospects of the DARPA DRACO program

32

Flight of a spacecraft with a DRACO engine as presented by an artist from DARPA

The Advanced Development Agency DARPA continues to search for technologies to increase the survivability and stability of the military orbital group. The most ambitious proposal in this area involves the creation of a DRACO nuclear propulsion system for satellites, with which they can maneuver and escape from under attack. This concept looks very interesting, but it has both advantages and disadvantages.

Perspective development


The new DRACO (Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations) program was launched about a year ago. General plans for carrying out certain works were drawn up, as well as key requirements and project technologies were identified. In addition, the search for performers began.



In September 2020, DARPA signed an agreement with Gryphon Technologies. Over the next few years, it will have to provide scientific and technological support to the developers of the DRACO engine. The value of the signed contract reached $ 14 million.

In April of this year, plans for the near future became known; also new agreements were concluded with the contractors. In the next 18 months, it is planned to carry out design work, divided into two directions - Track A and Track B. The goal of "Track A" is to develop a new nuclear rocket engine. As part of the parallel project "B", they will work out the appearance of an "operational" spacecraft for such an engine (Operational System - OS), and also create a technology demonstrator (Demonstration System - DS).

General Atomics was appointed as the executor of the Track A project; she will be assisted by Gryphon Technologies, previously involved in the program. Spacecraft development was entrusted to Lockheed Martin and Blue Origin. All program participants will constantly interact with each other and exchange technical and other information.

In June, another company, Ultra Safe Nuclear Technologies (USNC-Tech) from Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC), joined DRACO. Its task will be to help with the development of both "tracks" in the context of the safety of the propulsion system and related systems.

Thus, the final list of program participants has been determined and real research and design work has begun. They are planning to spend several years and hundreds of millions of dollars on them. The first flight of the DRACO-powered DS demonstrator is scheduled for 2025. As previously reported, a chemical-powered launch vehicle will launch DS into orbit, where the propulsion system will be tested. It is not known how soon new technologies will be able to be brought to the stage of OS and implementation in practice.

New guidelines


The goal of the DRACO program is to create a nuclear propulsion system of the NTP (Nuclear Thermal Propulsion) type. The architecture and principle of operation of such an engine is well known, however, DARPA has not yet published the terms of reference and the exact characteristics of the future product.

Rescue from interception and excessive cost. Potential and prospects of the DARPA DRACO program

Possible appearance of a spacecraft with an NTP engine. Graphics Popularmechanics.com

The core element of the NTP / DRACO engine is a nuclear reactor of the required power. Reportedly, the reactor will use uranium with an enrichment level of 5-20%. (so-called HALEU - High Assay Low Enriched Uranium). The heat from the reactor will be used to heat the working fluid, which will become liquefied hydrogen or another substance. The liquid will vaporize, gain additional energy, and flow out through the nozzle at a high speed to provide the required thrust.

It is estimated that an NTP engine using hydrogen will be approximately twice as efficient and economical as a chemical engine in terms of overall performance and capabilities. This will provide known benefits in the development and operation of spacecraft. In particular, it will be possible to reduce the tanks for hydrogen "fuel" and reduce the total mass of the ship.

The main goal of the DRACO project is to improve the safety of military spacecraft in low orbits. Developed countries, viewed as likely adversaries to the United States, have or are developing anti-satellite weapons. Accordingly, in the course of a full-scale conflict, the Pentagon's orbital group runs the risk of quickly losing at least part of its equipment and capabilities.

The main result of the DRACO project should be a universal nuclear propulsion system suitable for mounting on spacecraft for various purposes. With its help, it is proposed to withdraw satellites from the strike of anti-satellite missiles or interceptors.

The principle of such protection is quite simple. When an attack is detected, the nuclear engine will have to quickly transfer the device to another orbit, incl. higher, out of reach weapons enemy. After the threat disappears, DRACO will be able to return the device to its former orbit. High efficiency in terms of nuclear fuel and working fluid will make it possible to perform such maneuvers more than once.

Project potential


At the level of key ideas and concepts, the DRACO program looks quite interesting and promising. At the same time, it is obvious that the development of all the necessary components will be associated with serious difficulties and will be quite expensive. Time will tell whether it will be possible to overcome all expected and sudden difficulties and fulfill all plans.

The idea of ​​using an economical propulsion system to remove a satellite from impact has high potential and is of great interest. Existing and promising anti-satellite missiles and interceptor vehicles are designed to destroy orbital targets on a known trajectory, which allows you to calculate the lead point.

A sudden change in the parameters of the target's orbit will, at a minimum, reduce the effectiveness of such a weapon. The enemy will have to launch new means of interception, the successful use of which is also not guaranteed. Also DRACO will be able to raise the satellite above the interception line - this will make any missiles and combat spacecraft useless.


One of the latest GPS satellites in the assembly phase. In the future, such devices may receive a DRACO engine. Lockheed Martin Photos

However, obtaining such opportunities is associated with a number of difficulties of various kinds. First of all, it should be borne in mind that engines of the NTP type, suitable for integration into rocket and space technology, still exist only at a theoretical level. Companies General Atomics, Gryphon Tech., USNC-Tech and others have yet to find all the necessary technologies and create a full-fledged working engine.

It should be noted that DARPA is showing some optimism and plans to conduct the first OS / DRACO orbital flight as early as 2025. This may indicate the completion and successful completion of part of the research work. Based on their results, the development of a full-fledged project will begin. Despite the complexity of the tasks, the program participants still have enough time before the specified deadlines.

The DRACO program, like many other promising projects, may face financial problems. The exact cost of developing a fundamentally new engine and related products has not yet been determined, although it is already clear that we are talking about hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. The high cost, combined with the complexity and technical risks, can lead to the most severe criticism or even the closure of the project.

Completing the development and testing of DS and OS with a DRACO product does not guarantee complete success either. A promising nuclear facility is being developed for use on spacecraft. How much will the serial engines cost and how they will affect the cost of updating the orbital constellation is a big question.

In the distant future, DRACO developments can find application in various areas of the rocket and space industry, where compact and economical propulsion systems are required. However, such prospects for the whole direction directly depend on the results of the current project. If it does not suit the military and the congressmen, it should not be surprising that civilian astronautics will also abandon nuclear engines.

With an uncertain future


As befits the organization of promising developments in the defense sector, the DARPA agency is again trying to create a full-fledged nuclear rocket engine, moreover, for solving specific problems and with an eye to use in real projects. The proposed ideas are of great interest and the new project is indeed capable of creating a large reserve for the future, when anti-satellite weapons become a real and serious threat.

However, the successful completion of the DRACO program is still in question. It faces very complex tasks, the solution of which is unlikely to be quick, inexpensive and simple from the point of view of science and technology. Accordingly, the program risks facing delays, lack of funding and other problems. Whether it will be possible to meet all the deadlines, meet the budget and create equipment with the required characteristics - it will become clear over the next few years.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -1
    2 September 2021 18: 13
    Advanced Development Agency DARPA continues to search for technologies to increase the survivability and stability of the military orbital group
    ... We are ready to spend infinitely much, because the words WORLD WORLDWIDE, for them do not exist in any way and never.
  2. KCA
    +5
    2 September 2021 18: 48
    A nuclear engine for an orbital station for in-orbit maneuvers? I wonder where they will dissipate heat during normal orbital motion? Will they stabilize the position by constantly switched on nozzles at the same power in 6 directions? Or did they learn to start the reactor like an internal combustion engine - they pressed the button, gasped a couple of times and drove off?
    1. +4
      2 September 2021 21: 53
      Quote: KCA
      A nuclear engine for an orbital station for in-orbit maneuvers? I wonder where they will dissipate heat during normal orbital motion? Will they stabilize the position by constantly switched on nozzles at the same power in 6 directions? Or did they learn to start the reactor like an internal combustion engine - they pressed the button, gasped a couple of times and drove off?


      Apparently they assume that it will not only start at the snap of your fingers. The reactor should also be shut down quickly.
      And during active use, the reactor must be very hot, as it is said that when heated, hydrogen will heat up so much that an efficiency higher than that of a chemical reaction will be achieved.

      Quite an amazing and incredible reactor, on a wave of:

      Cold -> Super Hot -> Cold

      On earth, uranium-fueled reactors cannot do that.

      An example of Fukushima, as soon as the pumps for intensive cooling failed, the reactor immediately melted.

      Drank some money, or a cover for the withdrawal of nuclear weapons.
      1. -4
        2 September 2021 23: 27
        [quote] [Cold -> super hot -> cold / quote]
        So after all, the enemy, from whom it is necessary to run away, will have the same problems. He, too, will not dissect with a "gravity" in orbits. What about a quick launch - do you need it? It will be cold. If the situation reaches the full degree of readiness (here's a war), they will launch and transfer to another orbit, and the reactor will be thrown off. Let it fly and warm the Universe. If desired, you can also supply a couple of disposable reactors. Today I used one, a month later another.
        1. +1
          3 September 2021 12: 50
          [quote = dauria] [quote] [Cold -> super hot -> cold / quote]
          So after all, the enemy, from whom it is necessary to run away, will have the same problems. He, too, will not dissect with a "gravity" in orbits. What about a quick launch - do you need it? It will be cold. If the situation reaches the full degree of readiness (here's a war), they will launch and transfer to another orbit, and the reactor will be thrown off. Let it fly and warm the Universe. If desired, you can also supply a couple of disposable reactors. Today one used, a month later another. [/ Quote]

          If the engine is disposable, after working out the departure to another orbit due to the impossibility of shutting down the reactor, you propose to shoot, then was it worth the fuss. It was possible to immediately use the traditional scheme with RD on a chemical vapor fuel + oxidizer.

          If the reactor is "disposable" then you need two of them, then you need to return to orbit. And if you need several such maneuvers (exit-return).
      2. KCA
        +2
        3 September 2021 03: 53
        The dollar sawing comrades are still, for some reason, the smartest and decided to use hydrogen, and even fucking hot, but why do all other projects, including the NRE already being tested in the Russian Federation, imply the use of inert gases as a working medium? Maybe because of this:
        Hydrogen wear is the process of destruction of a metal element of a friction pair due to the absorption of hydrogen by the metal. The phenomenon of hydrogen wear was established by scientists D.N. Garkunov and A.A. Polyakov.
      3. -3
        3 September 2021 12: 02
        Quote: Pandiurin
        Quote: KCA
        A nuclear engine for an orbital station for in-orbit maneuvers? I wonder where they will dissipate heat during normal orbital motion? Will they stabilize the position by constantly switched on nozzles at the same power in 6 directions? Or did they learn to start the reactor like an internal combustion engine - they pressed the button, gasped a couple of times and drove off?


        Apparently they assume that it will not only start at the snap of your fingers. The reactor should also be shut down quickly.
        And during active use, the reactor must be very hot, as it is said that when heated, hydrogen will heat up so much that an efficiency higher than that of a chemical reaction will be achieved.

        Quite an amazing and incredible reactor, on a wave of:

        Cold -> Super Hot -> Cold

        On earth, uranium-fueled reactors cannot do that.

        An example of Fukushima, as soon as the pumps for intensive cooling failed, the reactor immediately melted.

        Drank some money, or a cover for the withdrawal of nuclear weapons.

        The reactor is always hot, but that's not a problem
  3. -4
    2 September 2021 18: 55
    Leave Afghanistan to bring democracy to sleepwalkers?
  4. +3
    2 September 2021 19: 05
    Well, sho .... This idea will reduce the cost of nuclear power for the "Petrel"! If the Burevestnik CD uses atmospheric air as a working medium, then in space you will have to add tanks with liquefied hydrogen (why not liquid carbon dioxide?) Or metal hydride storage ... (as they say, not free ...)! And yet this is an "option"! In addition, NPA (AUV) with similar nuclear power plants, but with a working fluid "on the water" ... And all on the basis of one nuclear power plant! Savings on the face! fellow
  5. -1
    2 September 2021 19: 11
    Primitivism of the highest level! Using radioactive material for heating is like a stoker. Obviously, scientists do not even understand that radioactivity has radial radiation and it must be transformed into linear radiation in order to transform it into an electric magnetic pulse, and not for heating.
    1. +4
      2 September 2021 20: 37
      Quote: gridasov
      Obviously, scientists do not even understand that radioactivity has radial radiation and it must be transformed into linear radiation in order to transform it into an electric magnetic pulse, and not for heating.

      belay
      Fly agarics are born today ... yeah.
      Colleague, are you hinting at this
      LET = d (E) / d (l)
      ?
      But how, then, to be with the theorem on the sum of decrements (do not confuse with excrement, please! With experiments too)?

      Huh?
      After all, the radiation integrals I2,4 will not transform radiality into linearity in our Euclidean space!
      1. -1
        2 September 2021 20: 57
        Yes, you cannot work with big data.
        1. 0
          2 September 2021 21: 17
          Quote: gridasov
          Yes, you cannot work with big data.

          untermensch.
          there was no blue blood in the veins request
    2. +2
      2 September 2021 20: 51
      Quote: gridasov
      radioactivity has radial radiation and it must be transformed into linear radiation in order to transform it into an electric magnetic pulse, and not for heating.

      And then sho to do with email. magnetic impulse? How to get "steam" for a "locomobile"? Put on an induction hotplate to "boil" the substance? And sho ... will the efficiency be higher? what
      1. -2
        2 September 2021 21: 22
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        And then sho to do with email. magnetic impulse?

        everything is simple: we take current-carrying tracks fused into ceramic panels, in which, under the influence of impulse overvoltages, thermal heating occurs (the main thing is to prevent melting and breaks of current-carrying tracks and resistive elements, soldering (welding) of wires due to thermoelectrodynamic stresses), the ceramic substrate heats up. ...
        and?
        voila: with this boiler we heat water, we get steam, we rotate the turbine and we get a lipestric current.
        drinks
        1. +1
          2 September 2021 22: 23
          In some cases, a great solution through conductive paths. I solved problems without them. In addition, a system of such tracks can induce a current even more. Thank you !
          1. -1
            2 September 2021 23: 31
            Quote: gridasov
            Thank you !

            not worth the thanks.
            because I
            Quote: gridasov
            working with big data is not given to you.

            better share the fly agarics!
            1. +1
              2 September 2021 23: 43
              Well, at least you don't kick me. Germans and Americans understand me more easily. Because they are moving in a logical direction. And in general, all these sympathies-antipathies do not bother me. The topic interests me.
    3. -1
      2 September 2021 23: 43
      Quote: gridasov
      it's like a stoker

      A stoker is economical: the boiler efficiency can be up to 98%. But only the boiler ...

      Molecules should be heavier than hydrogen.
      1. 0
        3 September 2021 07: 47
        Quite right! So when we model the process mathematically and theoretically, we do not take into account either the duration of this or that stage of the process, or its dynamics. How many times have I said that modern mathematics does not have the technology for analyzing precisely the different dynamics of conjugate physical processes, and even more so an adequate mat. method. Therefore, in reality, we know the consequence of which process is the production of heavy water molecules, but in fact, we do not even come close to seeing how to fit this process into the algorithms for the operation of devices. This is what I mean by reasoning and conductive paths as a particular solution for this particular process can take place.
      2. +2
        3 September 2021 15: 54
        It won't get any heavier. You need something very fluid and heat-intensive, otherwise a multi-megawatt core in a small volume at the slightest fluctuation in the supply of "fuel" -heat carrier will instantly give a goat, most likely with special effects laughing Hydrogen is suitable and cheap compared to the alternatives.
  6. +2
    2 September 2021 19: 14
    We have a domestic project "space tug" on a nuclear engine:
    The transport and power module (TEM, Nuclear tug, Space tug) is a Russian space vehicle under development (interorbital tug). TEM is being developed by JSC TsNIIMash by order of Roskosmos. The creation of the module is part of the development based on a megawatt-class nuclear power plant, a joint project of a group of enterprises belonging to the state corporations Roscosmos and Rosatom.



    So the stories about conceptual lag and profiled polymers are, to put it mildly, not entirely true.
    Great powers continue to go head-to-head in many key areas, with varying degrees of implementation, but with a corresponding elaboration of new ideas!
    1. 0
      2 September 2021 19: 56
      More precisely, nostril into the back seat. Everyone repeats the same mistakes and uses the same conceptual path of development.
    2. 0
      2 September 2021 23: 34
      Quote: RealPilot
      We have a domestic project "space tug" on a nuclear engine:

      remove this picture
      The "drip refrigerator" is a long-term life.
      fuflomycin.
      Now the trend is "death star" based on it
      In July, RIA Novosti, citing materials from the design bureau, reported that this spacecraft could receive laser weapon, capable of disabling enemy satellites.
  7. +2
    2 September 2021 19: 35
    the very idea of ​​a nuclear engine is quite good. But its effectiveness in the context of the above-described satellite protection system - I doubt it. Ground-based anti-satellite systems already have a lot of limitations, because everyone knows how difficult it is to load the load even on LEO, what, in the best case, will be the ratio of the mass of the system to the mass of the useful load. Taking into account the filling and accuracy requirements - an anti-satellite weapon is, in general, a golden bullet, the use of which en masse on the enemy's military satellites will cost the employing side a lot of money. the overall characteristics of serial and more or less budget samples hardly allow you to get all the required orbits.
    Thus, the development of this system with an eye on ground-based anti-satellite weapons seems to me somewhat redundant ..
    Against matryoshka-type systems - inspector satellites and interceptor satellites, which ALREADY will be in orbits or structurally capable of maneuvering on them within wide limits or operate in space with some kind of URO - here it seems to me that the effectiveness of the solutions described in the article drops sharply. Since it is much more difficult to detect the fact of hostile activity, convenient orbits will be occupied or potentially dangerous until they are completely cleared of potentially dangerous vehicles, and such vehicles themselves can be launched into orbit with old conversion rockets.
    In the case of further improvement of the aircraft, the issue of protection against the destruction of the spacecraft becomes even more problematic.

    To summarize, the development is generally useful, but it is doubtful that it will be an effective protection for spacecraft in terms of the combination of cost / effectiveness of protection.
  8. +4
    2 September 2021 22: 03
    NTP is a one-time start engine.
    After the very first start-up and subsequent shutdown by suppressing nuclear reactions by transferring the fuel assembly to a subcritical state, the residual heat generation of the assembly will require a constant flow rate of the cooling coolant. Otherwise, the reactor will simply melt.
    The only way to cool a reactor in space without losing the coolant is by radiation cooling, as in the Russian space nuclear projectile project.
    But the radiant heat exchanger is not visible in the Darpa pictures shown.
    The conclusion is that the service life after the launch of the NTP is at most a month, for a longer time there will not be enough coolant, judging by the volume of the rocket in the figure and taking into account the fact that the size of the core (to estimate the volume of the hydrogen tank) is about 1 meter (the core is at NTP near the exhaust nozzle), and cryogenic hydrogen evaporates during long-term storage due to imperfect thermal insulation of the tank.
    1. +2
      3 September 2021 11: 14
      The Russian project does not have a nuclear reactor, there is a reactor plus ion engines
    2. +1
      4 September 2021 02: 27
      Most likely, fuel and the cooling circuit are different things, fuel is supplied only when needed, but again, cooling is invisible. More questions.
  9. 0
    4 September 2021 02: 24
    The question is different, when the DPRK launched its medium-range missiles at altitude, it was able to reach an orbit of almost 4000 km, the question is whether they will have time to transfer the satellite to your orbit, and not the fact that the rocket will also not be able to maneuver and eventually shoot down this satellite.
    1. 0
      5 September 2021 08: 46
      Cough cough medium-range missiles do not go into orbit at all
      1. 0
        13 September 2021 13: 56
        Well, everything was recorded, but you have a dissenting opinion. "Finally, in the summer of 2017, the DPRK tested a new ballistic missile - Hwaseong-14. The first missile of the new type was launched on July 4, and the second - on the 28th. During the first launch, the carrier managed to rise to an altitude of 2,8 thousand kilometers and fell in the Sea of ​​Japan 933 kilometers from the launch site.During the second launch, the rocket rose to an altitude of 3,7 thousand kilometers and fell 998 kilometers from the launch site. Based on these data, South Korean and American experts suggested that the new rocket was intercontinental with a possible flight range from 6,7 to ten thousand kilometers. "
        1. 0
          13 September 2021 19: 33
          You can go up a million kilometers and still not go into orbit. Where do you see the word orbit in the messages?

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"