Do you understand how the indemnities work?

Not sure what you mean, but I think that falls into the field of economics. Or public health.

You’re spraying it around the rocket it’s not just sitting in a large puddle underneath. The goal is to be between the source of the sound/vibrations and the concrete.

...... right.....? And in what way does moving water do that better than always there water?

The water serves two purposes. One to help keep the tower and such cooled. The other use is for sound suppression. Rockets are loud, and water dampens that sound pretty well.

Water is best sound suppression method. Concrete won't last long. Walls won't last. Not extensible. Not reusable for multiple launches. Can get cracks. Can blast and hurt rocket. Remember Colombia incident of 1 tiny tiny thing led to disaster. Water is best option.

If you can minimize the damage to the concrete then you don’t have to repair it as often.

Really rolls off the tongue

Huh. I hadn't thought about the airborne water as a sound suppression thing. That's super interesting. But I still don't quite see how that helps with the concrete.

[removed]

I would have thought that would have been obvious to a nuclear expert.

Have you seen this?

https://youtube.com/shorts/Jzhmgw4FwW8?feature=share

Flooding 24/7 is different than water when you need it

>privatizing profits and socializing the costs

How is this different than oil or coal? Or heavy industry?

Pollution is socialized cost with privatized profits. Mining coal destroys environments. Burning coal causes asthma.

Seems nuclear would reduce socialized costs.

[removed]

[removed]

ah yes, exactly what we want, a proliferation of millions of orphan sources of enriched uranium. Small scale nuclear is probably the way forward, but RTG's in grandma's basement aren't it, chief.

One pellet is 60w, but you use more than one pellet.

It is the drivers of cars that kill people.

Isp is the term you want, it's a measure of fuel efficiency for generated thrust. For example, Ultra Safe Nuclear generated a reference design for NASA for a small, 25MWth NTR with an Isp of 900 seconds. Traditional chemical rockets (like the Raptor engines from SpaceX) are ~325-360 seconds depending on altitude.

[removed]

Nuclear for space travel is probably the best option we currently have.

For land based power, that is absolutely not true.

[removed]

[removed]

The propellant mass of nuclear thermal rockets would vary based on the fuel chosen (ideally, hydrogen) and the specific mission requirements but generally an equivalent NTR will have twice the efficiency of a chemical rocket. So twice your delta-v for the same propellant and mission payload.

[removed]