Space is already radioactive. The vehicles using nuclear propulsion will be outside of the atmosphere and shouldn't make an impact on radiation levels on earth. It was frowned upon because it was seen as putting nuclear weapons in Space, but that's different now. We could all easily kill each other with ICBM's so putting a nuclear ship in Space isn't the treat it was in the 70's, plus we can put more mass into space now, so things like shielding are less costly.

Nuclear power is indemnified by the govt beyond a certain amount. Without that indemnity, it wouldn't be economically viable.

I think it more of an old boys club like Standard Oil before the govt broke the monopoly

Solar and wind aren't "fuel".

Thanks. I’m paraphrasing the explanation from a book called “Why does E=MC2?” By Dr. Brian Cox and Dr. Jeff Forshaw. The book is written to explain the theory of relativity in a way normal people can understand, and talks about the implications of that theory on the real world. Makes a hard topic easy and fun to understand, so if you are interested I highly recommend it.

Seems reasonable to me? Light is zero kg, so infinite energy per kg. I can't put uranium in my fuel tank either. Just not practical for the everyday person.

thank you!

It's just that privatizing profits and socializing the costs kind of thing that's somewhat intrinsic to the nuclear equation.

It's just not the right way to compare nuclear with solar and wind. And you can't put wind or sunlight in a fuel tank.

I don’t see socialism as an issue since Lockheed, NASA, ESA, and JPL are the main stars. Rolls Royce is a contractor. Well so are Boeing and Lockheed for thatvmatter

They measured it in joules/kg. Solar is infinite. Wind I'm not so sure.

There's already ~4 billion metric tons of uranium in seawater. Dissolving the entire reactor and dumping it into the ocean would have no measurable effect. RTGs are actually more dangerous, as they require isotopes with high enough levels of radioactivity to generate useful amounts of heat, and those materials are at their highest levels of activity the moment they are produced...you can't just delay turning them on until after they've safely launched.

Thorium is just another possible fission fuel. It's often proposed to be used in a molten salt reactor, but molten salt reactors are not all thorium reactors and thorium reactors are not all molten salt reactors. There's no shortage of safe uranium reactor designs, it's just been impossible to get them implemented because of the anti-nuclear groups.

Not left off so much as can't be shown. What's the energy density of wind?

This was such a good answer! Thank you!

If you're going to Mars you want Rolls Royce Engines, looks way better on the brochure.

Plus less cancer.

So to answer your question, 50%.

Left solar and wind off the chart

Nuclear is not a silver bullet either monetarily or carbon wise. It's an option. But one with a number of VERY significant downsides and quite dependent on govt indemnification/socialism.

reddit hivemind has a nuclear power boner

On the other hand, much better than current reality tv. And on the third hand, more mutations!

the "anti nuclear groups" don't matter to to investors and money makers the same that those against fossil fuels didn't matter, the soviet union never was anti nuclear either

as per nuclear propulsion goes the soviets developed and lauched several and if this didn't go further was due to the policies for the use of nuclears in space driven by national security agreements between the world powers not because any "anti nuclear groups"

the only thing that matters to investors are returns to their investment the less riskier and the quicker the better and on that nuclears never competed with oil neverminnd with renewables

this thread is about nuclear propulsion

German Greens would disagree (wrongly and stupidly) with you.

I have a feeling that fusion power will radically change humanity’s way of life sometime this century. All the benefits of nuclear, without the waste and lower risk. Hopefully even something more radical will come along.

I don't see a reason to think that there is no rute to decarbonizing without nuclear power, i don't see any reason to think that as the "inevitable " or "correct" conclusion

I see many reasons why nuclear in space can be useful and desirable at least till we have fusion which we don't have

i don't see the need to proselitize the use of nuclear fission as energy on the ground in an thread about the use of nuclear propulsion in space

Why Uranium based though... My very limited knowledge on these things thought that Thorium reactors were the safer option?

Relevant xkcd