[simonh]

On the other hand if we'd gone all-in on nuclear pulse launchers, there would have been no incentive for companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin to develop reusable conventional rockets which will hopefully achieve the same result at lower environmental and perhaps also financial cost.

[snrplfth]

Even if you had effective nuclear pulse propulsion, you'd still need reusable chemical launchers to get them off the surface of Earth. Nuclear pulse engines are generally not something that you start up inside an atmosphere, for both safety and efficiency reasons.

[simonh]

The post I was responding to strongly implied using these for launches.

> ..It would also allow us to practically ship up enough materials to build self-sustaining habitats in near space..

[maverick_iceman]

How can chemical rockets with ~3km/s exhaust velocity ever achieve the same result? Also if we had gone all in on this concept maybe today SpaceX and BO would be working with a much more promising technology.

[simonh]

It depends how reusable nuclear launchers would be. A less efficient launch system in terms of ISP that uses thousands of times cheaper fuel and e.g. is 10 times more reusable might be very competitive.