It's possible that reliability/safety will improve as fast as the launch cadence does, in which case we could see the accident rate staying flat or decreasing.

Launches are less to be feared because they are oriented toward sea and the most critical moment are the first minutes. The device discussed is intended to travel away from earth so as you noted it won’t be dangerous after it quit orbit.

Disclaimer: not skilled in any related field, just a consumer of space science popularization videos for newbies.

(Not a direct comment on your opinion specifically, just building of the general idea)

Oceans are the cradle of life and are still populated by fishes, mammals, zoo and phytoplancton even away from coastlines.

http://comlmaps.org/gallery/footprints/

https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/programmes/datelinepacif...

Abyssal zones of the ocean are only populated by creatures that feed on hydrothermal vents, or dead creatures falling down from the surface. But the mid pacific has no hydrothermal vents and the surface is a dead zone due to human activity. So there is no source of food for life to exist here, and outside of the occasional whale fall it is truly dead.

I'm kinda surprised the soviets even thought of the environment in that way.

Consequently, reactor payloads would be carried on a very small fraction of launches, then used in space for an extended amount of time.

    > Or even if it broke up
    > in the atmosphere.

It’s not the 99 rockets falling into the ocean shortly after launch that are problematic, it’s the 1 that almost works but then lands in the city we should be concerned with.

That's pretty close for what would be high level nuclear material.

A better way would just be shielding, make sure it stays in 1 piece through reentry and impact. And still doesn't leak radiation then.

Also you can presumably shield reactors to survive reentry or even ship the fuel in multiple such reentry proof containers. And of course longer term build these in space, given nuclear propulsion is basically in space only anyway given its characteristics.

Or it could go the way of the airline industry where failures become less regular as the industry develops ways of systematically reducing them.

Also, nuclear rockets should probably be launched to earth orbit in pieces, separately, so that if any one launch fails it won’t create a nuclear accident in the biosphere. Then assemble and power up the nuclear rocket as far away from earth as possible.

Cold war = rocket science, new fuels, materials science, major computing advancements, supply chain changes, innovation, science hype, broad optimism

I know most of this is happenstance and that peace time doesn't itself cause lackluster development, but it is interesting and palpable.

I was so down on 2000 - 2020, but the decade ahead is exciting, and I'm filled with motivation.

Next time the cold war cools down, we need to invent something to replace it.

Colonial wars in the asteroid belt and beyond. Interstellar wars. Maybe the first FTL drive could be on an autonomous space torpedo, and that could be lore explanation for the shape of warp nacelles in this timeline.

If America and China are dead set on having another dick measuring contest, we're all much better off if they do it with drones halfway between here and the moon, instead of near earthbound population centers. By all means let's make outer space the future of war, as far away from humans as possible.

The US declared war on the concept of terrorism in 2001, directly invaded two nations as part of that effort, and overthrew multiple governments before ultimately abandoning the war and handing a broken Afghanistan back to the Taliban in 2021.

We did an excellent job of making sure the war was fought on foreign soil and largely stayed out of our daily life back home, but we definitely were at war.

(I'm focusing on the US here, but there were quite a few other major conflicts and military coups around the world during the same time)

Its worth noting that Afghanistan may be less developed technologically but they have now successfully fended off invasions from both the Soviet Union and the US. Never underestimate your enemy in war, especially if you're Goliath invading David's home.

How much can a nation progress if its youth is pessimistic about everything? It doesn't matter whether the pessimism is based on actual problems (healthcare, housing prices etc.) or learned through terminally online reddit/twitter consumption.

Why does the definition need expanded?

The lack of housing is, IMO, a failure of government — material costs for homes are surprisingly low compared to everything else — but even then, housing policy is a different department to the space stuff.

Lack of housing is a "feature", not a bug, as it enriches the housing owning class and makes it more difficult for "undesirable" people to move in with NIMBYs.