Apparently Bruno has been talking about two orders of magnitude improvement to Centaur V's duration. Seems far fetched to me, but I think months of duration would be necessary to make this engine worthwhile (the PDF is talking about the value of this engine for getting astronauts home from Mars quickly in emergencies; that would only be possible with months of duration at least I think.)
DARPA says they're expecting designs using liquid hydrogen, and as far as I understand liquid hydrogen would be the most efficient propellant for an NTR. What might the best storable alternative be?
From what I understand, Bruno didn't say that Centaur V has those two orders of magnitude improvements, rather that they're aiming to push improvements of that level over the next few years. That said, I don't think it's too far fetched, assuming that the long duration version is separate from the regular version (ie it can be heavier to support denser tanks).
Liquid Hydrogen would be most efficient in a pure physics sense, but due to the mass tradeoffs with storage tech, there may be other propellants that are comparable in a practical sense. I'm not informed enough on the matter to say exactly which would be better, but for a somewhat comparable point of reference,
Hydrogen+Oxygen is the most efficient propellant for chemical rockets but when accounting for the special tanks needed for storing hydrogen, methane can achieve pretty comparable performance due to being perfectly fine in a thin-walled stainless steel tank.
DARPA says they're expecting designs using liquid hydrogen, and as far as I understand liquid hydrogen would be the most efficient propellant for an NTR. What might the best storable alternative be?