Hacker News Reader

Comment by CydeWeys | Hacker News Reader

A nuclear propulsion rocket isn't actually a very useful thing, as it spews out way too much radiation to be acceptably used in peacetime. And for war, well, several countries already have enough nuclear-tipped warheads spread around the world to end it, so additional delivery mechanisms aren't really needed.

View on HN

That's the whole point, narcissist with botox cheeks gets a scary cartoon, generals and bureaucrats get mansions and hotels in europe, ordinary people get high dose of radiation. And no one cares how the cartoon relates to common sense and reality.

> mansions and hotels in europe

Also targets

Also children. Despite all the rhetoric europe and usa are the least likely places to be intentionally used as targets.

The only tested nuclear thermal rocket was open cycle (in the US at least), but even back then there were drawing board designs for closed cycle engines that would not have radioactive exhaust.

Wasn't the argument that a rocket with nuclear propulsion can keep accelerating all the way to the target, so by the time it gets there it travels at speeds that make it completely unstoppable? That would make it marginally more useful than ICMBs during war.

No, aerodynamics prevent that from being possible. But maybe you’re conflating with hypersonic cruise missiles, which are also being worked on but somewhat orthogonal?

In any case, the point of the nuclear cruise missile is that it can be essentially a drone stealth nuclear-armed bomber flying just outside of the other country’s airspace 24/7/365. Or a fleet of such drone missiles.

They can be designed to emit no radiation, except somewhat trivial activation of intake air

Reply on news.ycombinator.com