Search results

Historic proposals for nuclear energy in space never got far enough for feature creep to be an issue in the first place. Even Project Prometheus didn't get that far. They were canceled because nuclear energy related to anything is simply and invariably more expensive and (in many contexts)...

The reason nuclear powered missions have not really taken off is because they have an invariably high price tag. Even if you had a thoroughly tested, modular, universal nuclear electric rocket design simply lying around, you're still left with a very complicated and very expensive system that's...

Launch dates for interplanetary missions have always had this restriction. Rushing to meet the nearest window is simply reckless, especially since you can't always diagnose (let alone fix) problems experienced on an interplanetary probe. A failure with a nuclear reactor before leaving Earth...

It's less about protecting the radiator panels themselves but more about preventing them from scattering ionizing radiation emitted by the reactor. While there isn't a crew to protect in this particular context, sensitive electronics and scientific instruments could be potentially damaged. You...

This particular layout is a common feature seen in many other nuclear electric rocket concepts proposed over the years. Per Human Exploration of Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0 Addendum #2, it's simply for radiation shielding. While the power conversion systems are small and can be...

Technically, all nuclear reactors ever placed into space (mostly Soviet designs) have also used systems identical to those or like those employed on RTGs to convert thermal energy into electricity. This means that, while they still generate a lot more thermal energy per given kilogram of fuel...

Discounting the strong possibility of outright dishonesty, I'm shocked people still make this particular claim instead of the more nuanced (but still strawman-tacular) alternative that people said reusability was likely uneconomical. It's not like there aren't known examples of research into...

It is, in fact, a safe bet when one remembers technologies benefitting terrestrial data centers will also advance. For instance: If the price of electricity on Earth and/or the cost of inference goes down, then the alleged financial raison d'être for orbital data centers dissolves. What isn't...

SpaceX having, "solved these kinds of issues before" doesn't mean a mere $20 billion comes anywhere close to being a realistic figure for what Terafab would require to meet its goals. By contrast, TSMC has pledged $165 billion for its own in-progress manufacturing facility in Arizona that will...

The original lifespan was predicated on much shorter science orbit (14 days) and thus more frequent and relatively prolonged exposure to the Jovian radiation belts. When Juno's primary thruster notably experienced pressurization issues after the spacecraft entered its initial orbit, Juno was...

While it is indeed a "factual comment", it also has little to do with the one it was replying to nor the comment that that comment was replying to. The problem is not cooling as an engineering issue but cooling as a cost issue. Yes, the cost of keeping a radiator running in space is...

What do you mean, "we'll never know the details"? Off the top of my head: Both Starcloud and Google recently published white papers purported to be in favor of orbital data centers. I say, "purported" because neither are all that good. Both have serious issues with their citations not...