Doubt it would really. We've already had nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers and Arctic icebreakers, which are just niche use cases that justify the cost of the nuclear bit.

The bourgeois aren't afraid of new technologies. As long as they control infrastructure and policy, their fossil fuel rents are secure and will seize the opportunity for new rents. They permitted states to spend several billion on nuclear R&D as a centralised rentier-friendly fallback for the inevitable drop in fossil fuel resource quality. Unless we're talking about urban myths like cold fusion or perpetual motion, several approaches and technologies have been exhaustively attempted. Items like MSRs or hybrid fusion, which were previously mothballed, are being revisited worldwide.

Renewables have outpaced nuclear in the meantime when it comes to the sole goal of curtailing fossil fuel demand. No steam islands, low O&M, and turnaround time short enough for a learning effect to drive down costs. China are breaking emissions records year on year because of the ability to scale up solar in a fraction of the time of new nuclear builds. It's not technology suppression; there is just no technology that adequately displaces fossil fuels in a time frame that actually matters. Only curtailing demand with sane socialist planning.

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I think the fundamental difference between a nuclear sub or other ship and a nuclear rocket would be where things can go wrong. If a nuclear boat has a reactor problem, that reactor problem stays on or under the water, pretty much localized.

With a nuclear rocket engine, it's likely to fail inside the atmosphere and in a way where it fails catastropically that doesn't even necessarily involve the engine itself being the cause. One faulty heat shielding tile? Congrats, your rocket disintegrated on re-entry and spread fissile material in the upper atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of miles.

That's why I think nuclear engines specifically for space travel are a bad idea. The only way to make them not a problem is if you assemble them in space and the ships with them are never leaving space, while getting the fissile material from, like, the moon. Which is something we are decades away from even entertaining as a species.

[–] EatPotatoes@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah nobody is really proposing launching them in the atmosphere. I hope lol

And I further agree the thing is a pointless waste. Robots with a few solar panels and RTGs do the job. Sending people into space has been an aerospace scam since the 70s.

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yea, see, I have no faith in them not trying to do exactly that. Any such engine for the next several decades would need to survive at least one flight out of our atmosphere and I do not trust SpaceX with that.

[–] EatPotatoes@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I doubt they will go to the expense of building such a rocket. The racket of 15 launches to replace 1 looks like a more lucaritive swindle.

We need to step back from the SciFi and appreciate the mundane.

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 1 points 1 day ago

Yea, they'd only try if that was the only contract they could get.

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 2 points 4 days ago

That's what we call a mixed blessing I suppose. I really don't want Elon near fissile material except if the scenario involves getting pricked by an umbrella.