[ajford]

I always figured it was from Nuclear pearl-clutching and genuine fear about launch disasters. Especially after the various Apollo and shuttle disasters.

Though with how SpaceX has been blowing up rockets left and right, probably a good idea to not have nuclear materials launching until that's been resolved entirely.

Boca Chica beach is a mess now, I can only imagine what new Fallout installment we'd get if South Texas became irradiated from a failed launch.

[perihelions]

> "probably a good idea to not have nuclear materials launching until that's been resolved entirely"

This isn't an issue at all: fission reactors aren't hazardous until after they first start up (go critical), which in the space electric-propulsion context means after (if) they've successfully launched, and are no longer in the vicinity of Earth.

At any rate, China is apparently[0] moving in this direction, regardless of what the US does.

[0] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3255889/star... ("Starship rival: Chinese scientists build prototype engine for nuclear-powered spaceship to Mars" (2024)) (mirror: https://archive.is/sGUJr )

[GolfPopper]

>fission reactors aren't hazardous until after they first start up (go critical)

This is only true if the fission reactor's fuel isn't scattered over square kilometers after a launch failure.

[XorNot]

SpaceX let rockets explode because they're using chemical propellants and the consequences of that are low provided no one gets hit by debris.

It's bizarre to suggest that the same strategy would be used with nuclear materials onboard. Developing the "can not fail" rocket is the sort of thing NASA does well, and kind of highlights how we've squandered them.