/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12482591
>so let's have more? What's your point, retard?

>OMG people is dying right in front of me of radiation! Heeeeelpppp

Retard, we need nuclear to colonize space, we can`t make it with conventional rockets.

>>12400969
>I was under the impression that nuclear flight remains impossible because the amount of radiation shield needed for that would be too heavy for flight
No, we have radiation in the space and anyway, if you want to protect astronauts, a shield can be added to the ship.
>>12401013
>The first is that the risk of the rocket taking the nuclear materials into space exploding is still too high
Even if that where to happen, the core could be shielded and recovered, and let`s be honest, we have detonated dozends of nukes in the atmosphere, we have fukushima polluting the pacific 24/7, we have chernobil, and now we are going to worry for the brief moment that can go wrong when putting an engine to LEO?
Look at the size of the engines, in pic they are very small, is not like you are putting a nuclear reactor in orbit.

>>12315181
>Starship fills the role for all of this.

Yes, but is a jack of all trades, in reality good enough to go to the moon, but not Mars, why because fuel.
Now, if you were to retrofit it with a nuclear rocket and leave one for the role of planetary transportation, then it would be fine.