SMR's, and the future thorium reactors etc., often use a type of pebble that is not hazardous and furthermore resembles nothing like the huge older style of big nuke plants.

For purposes of this thread, the triso particle fuels also hold substantial hope/promise for space exploration, as launching them poses a very small risk of fallout even with a lower atmosphere RUD. More to follow, hopefully.

To Elon's tweet, while he is right long term, it is very difficult to just 'fire back up' a mothballed/shut down nuke reactor, unfortunately, at least from what I have read/know about it (not much). I think the bigger German plants recently shuttered are basically done: the greens won there, which is why energy costs are astronomical in Germany today, and their dependency on russian natural gas is part of Putin's calculus about being able to just take Ukraine.

aTmAg said:

---

This is the sort of thing they subject nuclear containers to:



I imagine power plants are pretty damn hard to attack. It would probably take a nuclear bomb, but then why not just use a nuclear bomb?

---

Nice. But what about the reactor itself?

edit: nevermind. Nortex97 answered

TexAgs91 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

This is the sort of thing they subject nuclear containers to:



I imagine power plants are pretty damn hard to attack. It would probably take a nuclear bomb, but then why not just use a nuclear bomb?

---

Nice. But what about the reactor itself?

---

I not a nukeologist, but I imagine they are under so much thick ass concrete that it would make a REALLY bad target.

aTmAg said:

---

I not a nukeologist

---

Yeah sorry for the drive by post, I was on my way out the door but had to get in a reply so I didn't forget to respond. Although this being one of my favorite threads I'd probably be back anyway.

But essentially nuclear reactors are really safe nowadays. They fail into safe configurations, they're incredibly well-hardened to outside attack, they don't produce radioactive waste. They have multiple safety systems to prevent uncontrolled reaction.

I guess you could gain control of the plant and override a ton of safety systems and cause a meltdown. But it's the kind of thing that is just difficult to do - and the people that know how are absolutely the ones who would NOT do it. You'd be sabotaging the future of nuclear power.

I advocate for nuclear power constantly. It's our only hope to actually achieve green energy for the planet at the scale required to 1. reduce CO2 output, 2. not create an endless cycle of replacing windmills and solar cells every decade 3. actually generate enough power to meet the needs.

So yeah sorry for the quip! Hope that helps.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Jock 07 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Decay said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

Also nuclear is vastly better for global warming than burning hydrocarbons for energy

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 6, 2022

---

Normally I'd say he's right. But in these times, nuclear power plants are also an easy target with potentially devastating fallout.

---

Totally wrong.

---

Is not

---

how so?

---

That was more of a response to the "nuh uh" post with no details.

---

And that was more of a response to your original response with no details.
hth

Jock 07 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Jock 07 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Decay said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

Also nuclear is vastly better for global warming than burning hydrocarbons for energy

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 6, 2022

---

Normally I'd say he's right. But in these times, nuclear power plants are also an easy target with potentially devastating fallout.

---

Totally wrong.

---

Is not

---

how so?

---

That was more of a response to the "nuh uh" post with no details.

---

And that was more of a response to your original response with no details.
hth

---

Seems like most people were able to deduce that I was talking about nuclear fallout from an attack.

The original post did not come off like that if it was tour intent.

I still don't think they make good targets in the long run...you'd be better off demolishing the connections with conventional munitions, and going after refineries...but let s face it, in a MAD type launch scenario, they'll go after populations first.

Today's landing took forever to update, thought we lost it for a bit!

Great go for launch call too.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Today's landing took forever to update, thought we lost it for a bit!

Great go for launch call too.

---

Was wondering if anyone else heard that...

Another 48 Starlinks just reached orbit https://t.co/BLb2x69lvQ

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 9, 2022

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Today's landing took forever to update, thought we lost it for a bit!

Great go for launch call too.

---

Was wondering if anyone else heard that...

---

I watched it. watched it again. what am I missing?

You have to pinch yourself but this is real. Falcon 9 booster autonomously landing from space to earth @elonmusk pic.twitter.com/OLEIfizvO9

— Tesla Silicon Valley Club (@teslaownersSV) March 9, 2022

BREAKING: .⁦@elonmusk⁩ and Grimes secretly welcome second child. I wonder what the name is 👀. Congratulations to both of you. https://t.co/oKvgoIKxoQ

— Tesla Silicon Valley Club (@teslaownersSV) March 10, 2022

Congrats and all, but, wow.

Optimized, fully-reusable Starship is ~150t to same reference orbit as Saturn V. In expendable mode, Starship payload would be 250t to 300t.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 9, 2022

Interesting data confirmation, if valid of course.

will25u said:

---

You have to pinch yourself but this is real. Falcon 9 booster autonomously landing from space to earth @elonmusk pic.twitter.com/OLEIfizvO9

— Tesla Silicon Valley Club (@teslaownersSV) March 9, 2022

---

Gotta love American Broomsticks!

nortex97 said:

---

Optimized, fully-reusable Starship is ~150t to same reference orbit as Saturn V. In expendable mode, Starship payload would be 250t to 300t.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 9, 2022

Interesting data confirmation, if valid of course.

---

This picture isn't complete without a second chart ranking these rockets by cost.

Quote:

---

Optimized, fully-reusable Starship is ~150t to same reference orbit as Saturn V.

---

I never got to see a Saturn V take off.

Would love to remedy that by seeing Starship.

I know they are huge, but when viewing a Falcon in a video, it is hard to know scale.

To add to that, the scale of a super heavy booster;

Quote:

---

Approximately 11 weeks after the process began, SpaceX has finished stacking its newest Super Heavy booster prototype the first of its kind intended to host 33 new Raptor V2 engines.

Designed to launch Starship's massive, namesake upper stage part of the way to orbit, Super Heavy is in many ways simpler than Starship but just as complex and unprecedented in others. Ignoring SpaceX's unusual plans to have boosters land on huge mechanical arms installed on a skyscraper-sized tower, Super Heavy is 'merely' a large vertical-launch, vertical-landing liquid rocket booster the likes of which SpaceX already has extensive experience with through Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. What mainly sets Super Heavy apart is its sheer scale.

Measuring around 69 meters (~225 ft) from tip to tail, Super Heavy just one of two Starship stages is almost as tall as an entire two-stage Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy rocket. At nine meters (~30 ft) wide, a single Super Heavy booster effectively a giant steel tube should be able to store at least six or seven times as much propellant as Falcon 9 and about two to three times as much as Falcon Heavy. Engine count and peak thrust are similarly staggering.

SpaceX's newest Super Heavy prototype Booster 7 (B7) expands those engine-related capabilities even further. Instead of the 29 Raptor V1 engines installed on Super Heavy B4, Booster 7 is designed to support up to 33 Raptor V2 engines. While the V2 design significantly simplifies Raptor's design to make it easier to build, install, and operate, it also substantially boosts maximum thrust from around 185 tons (~410,000 lbf) to at least 230 tons (~510,000 lbf). In theory, if Super Heavy B7 is outfitted with a full 33 Raptor V2 engines capable of operating at that claimed thrust level, Booster 7 could theoretically produce at least 40% more thrust than Booster 4. B4, however, has yet to attempt a single static fire.

The fact that SpaceX hasn't put Booster 4 through a single full wet dress rehearsal (a launch simulation just shy of ignition) or static fire test after more than half a year at the orbital launch site has led many to assume that the prototype is likely headed for premature retirement. With Booster 7 now perhaps just a week or two away from test-readiness, SpaceX finally has a viable replacement capable of both carrying the flame forward and kicking off the qualification of the first prototype designed to use Raptor V2 engines.

---

Elon is a slacker. Starship needs to be bigger.

https://coolinfographics.com/blog/2015/2/9/the-massive-scifi-starship-size-comparison-chart.html?format=amp

Since we didn't have a sufficiently bored nerd on the site to tell us this a page back or whatever.

I calculate that the ISS spends 70 % of its time over the ocean; 4.1% over China; 3.0% over Australia; 2.8% over Russia; 1.4% over Kazakhstan; 1.4% over Canada; 1.4% over Brazil; 1.2% over Mongolia; 1.2% over the USA; 0.75% over Argentina; 0.59% over India and 0.57% Indonesia

— Jonathan McDowell (@planet4589) March 8, 2022

Who didn't see this coming?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10608023/amp/Video-posted-Russias-space-program-threatens-leave-astronaut-55-aboard-space-station.html

Jock 07 said:

---

Who didn't see this coming?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10608023/amp/Video-posted-Russias-space-program-threatens-leave-astronaut-55-aboard-space-station.html

---

Russia must be barred from the International Space Station from now on until we get serious meaningful apologies and lots of them.

Not until the US can stationkeep. Right now we depend on the Russians for stationkeeping and lots of the life support functions on the station.

Ignore what the Roscosmos idiot is saying, NASA and Roscosmos continue to work together relatively fine, all things considered.

Apparently the Cygnus cargo craft now has that capability. I think Scott Manley was talking about it in one of his recent vids, I'll see if I can find it.

Also, saw in a recent article (Spaceflight Now, I think) that the Starliner is currently aiming for a May 20 launch, but that may actually get bumped up because a USSF Atlas launch is getting pushed back, so the window would be there. Supposedly Boeing has gotten it's valve situation sorted...supposedly...

EDIT:
Here's the video I was thinking of.

Whatever the case may be, I think it's imperative that the ESA/NASA/everyone-except-Russia figure out how they'd keep ISS operational, or work towards the replacement. Without Russia it feels like ISS is not very viable long term, even if we can keep it out of the atmosphere.

Starliner being operational is great....until blue origin pulls its head out of it's ass, they'd have to launch them on falcons

There is already a plan in place to expand ISS 8n the next few years with new command/control functions. We're not 100% there yet, but we're close to being 100% independent of the Russians

Axiom's new modules will have to have life support functions so I think you're right.

I've been told unofficially that ULA is in possession of functional BE-4 engines, not just pathfinders.

Yes, the next test starliner launch is supposed to use basically one of the last Atlas V rockets. We can't make any more, and oh by the way it uses Russian RD-180 engines. The BE-4 continues to remain vapor ware apparently, I've seen no credible updates about when they might actually, really, deliver flight ready engines for Centaur Vulcan.

Boeing and Sierra Space should, properly, be contracting at an emergency rate for possible integration on a Falcon, though this is a challenge as it is done horizontally as I understand it.