Exactly. What is needed is a SpaceX-like enterprise, where the engineering effort is concentrated in building economies of scale. To me it's clear that nuclear energy's pros largely outweigh the cons, and that it is a perfect complement to solar and wind power generation.

▲

tencentshill 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

We can't blow up nuclear reactors to learn how they failed like spaceX does with rockets.

▲

charcircuit 3 days ago | parent [-]

Sure we can, just not out in the open with a bunch of spectators.

	▲	kotaKat 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		... Sooooo... time to fire back up the old range at Bikini Atoll?

▲

jraph 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> What is needed is a SpaceX-like enterprise

I'm not sure. They have more injuries per worker than their competition [1]. Space should already not be "let's work too fast at safety's cost", nuclear really can't.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/18/spacex-worker-injury-rates...

	▲	elictronic 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Injury rate is 6x other space vehicle manufacturers. If you were to slow them down by 6x they would pretty close to the 20 years it’s already taken to get SLS/constellation to do a test launch. Super heavy is on year 4.
	▲	rogerrogerr 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Betcha their worker injuries per kg to LEO are lower than most companies.

▲

crooked-v 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I really don't want a SpaceX-like attitude to radioactive material.

	▲	lostlogin 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		A nuclear Musk would be interesting.