IIRC (Its a long document, and I only skimmed it) they assumed 20% efficiency on behalf of the reactors.
I think they just wanted a plausible future energy source that they didnt have to look at too closely.
My first issue with the design is that it looked like a decent percentage of the planet would have to be launched into space just to build the thing.
A lot of the space math looked alright, but theres several issues of practicality.
>Even if you solve the problem of container destruction
No idea if this is related, but everywhere they needed 1 reactor, they had 4. 2 in active/active failover, and 2 cold spares. It seemed relatively easy for them to perform maintenance on these. But its just heaps more launch mass, heaps more acceleration fuel, and a lot more deceleration fuel.
I think they just wanted a plausible future energy source that they didnt have to look at too closely.
My first issue with the design is that it looked like a decent percentage of the planet would have to be launched into space just to build the thing.
A lot of the space math looked alright, but theres several issues of practicality.
>Even if you solve the problem of container destruction
No idea if this is related, but everywhere they needed 1 reactor, they had 4. 2 in active/active failover, and 2 cold spares. It seemed relatively easy for them to perform maintenance on these. But its just heaps more launch mass, heaps more acceleration fuel, and a lot more deceleration fuel.